Do and Undo: The high-stakes game of scrapping public projects

Raju Korti
In the highly crooked landscape of Indian politics, there appears a pattern preceding most elections: the tendency of opposition parties to promise the scrapping of major projects introduced by the ruling party. The latest example is Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena declaring it would scrap the Dharavi Redevelopment Project if elected to power. Similar reversals, some of which immediately come to the mind and mentioned here, illustrate this recurring "do and undo" phenomenon. 

A Wikipedia grab of Dharavi

While people, divided on party lines, rejoice in this specious but senseless assurances, it is conveniently forgotten what this means to the citizens, and more critically, for the state's financial health. Take for instance the Bullet Train project in Maharashtra linking Mumbai and Ahmedabad. It initially received support from the Maharashtra Government. However, after the Vikas Aghadi (MVA) coalition came to power in 2019, there were suggestions to reassess the project's land acquisition process and question its viability, especially given its cost. It slowed down the project and delays only added to complications and cost escalation. The project was re-railed with the change in the government. This back-and-forth delayed construction, shot up costs, and frustrated stakeholders. The story of Mumbai's Metro 3, is not different.

The Statue of Unity in Gujarat, the Aarey Forest Metro Car Shed (Mumbai), the three-capital proposal of Andhra Pradesh, the Farm Laws Repeal, Article 370 and Goa Mining Ban only underscore the frequent shifts in policy when rival parties assume power, often leaving the projects in limbo and leading to escalating costs and heartburns. The effects range from economic disruptions to loss of public trust, with each example reinforcing the need for stability and continuity in state policy, especially on large-scale initiatives impacting millions of citizens. But trust deficit means little to parties blinded with political gains and brownie points.

Projects like the Dharavi Redevelopment take hits from such flip flops that are purely meant to show needless one-upmanship. There is little thought for the implications this would have for residents living there in challenging conditions. For years, Dharavi's residents have looked to redevelopment as a pathway to improved housing and sanitation, job opportunities, and enhanced living standards. If halted, the delay would extend the community's struggles, keep them languishing in deteriorating conditions, and shaking their faith in government promises, which in any case, are taken with a bagful of salt. Dharavi, as it were, should not have been allowed to happen in the first place but the federal governance in India has always been about first allowing a problem to grow and then resolve it for seeking political gains.

Political leaders never tire of shouting hoarse about poverty in the country. Chest beating for the have-nots has now outlived its utility as a political rhetoric, and yet, this spools plays regularly. Nobody is even amused anymore. Beyond this political recreation, such policy reversals have severe financial implications. For those who couldn't care this way or that, the loss is finally recovered from them. 

Projects like the Dharavi Redevelopment involve years of painstaking planning, tendering processes, and substantial investments in preparatory work. When a new government decides to halt or reverse these projects, these sunk costs -- money spent without producing a tangible result -- add up. Not only the public bears these losses, the state also diverts resources from potentially productive projects.

In Maharashtra, significant resources were directed towards major infrastructure projects like the Mumbai Metro, Coastal Road, and regional economic hubs. Political promises to put on hold, halt, scale back such initiatives -- often to align with ideological or populist positions -- disrupt their envisioned benefits. The state loses both direct financial investments and the potential long-term revenue and growth these projects are meant to generate.

The key question is whether these policy reversals serve any larger ideological purpose. While some policy shift reflect genuine ideological differences, many reversals are driven by political motives to serve the interests of a particular class of people or constituency. The Dharavi Project, for instance, is less about ideology and more of a politically symbolic gesture -- asserting that the new regime can and will undo its rivals' work. Adani or what is often bandied as "crony capitalism" is just a front. 

This political manoeuvring comes at a high price -- not just financially but also in terms of continuity and stability. The administrative machinery, which spends months if not years planning and implementing projects, is thrown into disarray when new governments rewrite policy plans. 

Such a "do and undo" cycle also adversely impacts investor and public confidence. Consistent policy changes make it challenging for investors and tax-payers (read citizens), especially in real estate, manufacturing and infrastructure, to trust long-term commitments. If foreign investors and development partners feel uncertain about project stability, they may hesitate to commit capital to projects that could be terminated based on electoral outcomes. Moreover, this cycle restricts bureaucratic progress, diverting attention from growth-centric policies. Bureaucrats, unable to rely on continuity, tend to become wary in decision-making. It shifts their focus to adopting short-term safe policies over long-term, transformative initiatives.

For a so called "progressive and Numero Uno" Maharashtra to emerge from the "do and undo" trap, a bipartisan approach to major policy decisions could be a step forward. Instituting bipartisan committees to vet large infrastructure projects before they commence, or establishing special legislative approvals for major reversals, could introduce checks on politically motivated policy reversals. Additionally, involving citizen advisory boards and local representatives in decision-making can create a direct connection between policy decisions and public sentiment. This could ensure that the people's needs are prioritized over political gains. The moot point is can this happen in a country where larger public interests are sacrificed for myopic political gains?

Maharashtra with its rich history and vast economic ambitions, cannot afford to allow its growth trajectory to be dictated by cyclical political rivalries. But can collaborative governance ever happen in a country where petty rivalries divide and rule hapless citizens?

Pawar Play: The art of saying goodbye without leaving

Raju Korti
I first bumped into Sharad Pawar way back in 1975 in Sangli when I was pursuing my second year in Engineering. I was 19, and he at 34 was emerging as a promising young politician under the tutelage of the astute Yashwantrao Chavan. In the prosperous Western Maharashtra belt, powered by its cooperative movement and influential agrarian leaders, Pawar appeared as a face of a new era -- a striking figure in Ray Ban sunglasses and blue jeans, carrying a dash of flair and a fairly impressive knowledge of Marathi Literature. As the years passed, he evolved effortlessly into a shrewd leader with an uncanny ability to attract the masses. Yet, his early image of youthful dynamism gradually gave way to a reputation for strategic cunning and complex political manoeuvring that would become his hallmark.

As the young man in his stylish avtaar walked with a confident gait and an assured demeanour, I could see he was markedly different from the seniors in his league -- Sangli's sugar baron Vasant Dada Patil, Walve's sugar baron Rajarambapu Patil and Shirol's Ratnappa Kumbhar. But little did I have an inkling that he would leave them all behind one day -- for good and bad reasons. 

This rather longish preamble of history is necessitated in the view of what I have to write about him today, although those who have seen him all these years, would see through him and his penchant for political machinations, as nothing surprising. The 83-year-old Nationalist Congress Party leader today hinted at retirement from active politics, stating that he may not contest future elections. He expressed his intentions to pass on the party baton -- particularly the progress of Baramati -- to his successor Yugendra Pawar. Speculations over Pawar's final innings in electoral politics have been circulating for some time now, and was raked up again by nephew Ajit Pawar.  

The Pawar Vs Pawar fight for Baramati might be seen as a referendum on Sharad Pawar's continuing influence over voters, as it sees his grandnephew Yugendra Pawar, do a battle against nephew Ajit Pawar whose rebellion forced a split in NCP. The fact, however, is it is not about his fighting further electoral battles but about his leadership. His hint of stepping away from active politics after his current Rajya Sabha term sparks questions about the authenticity of his statement, especially given his past record of unpredictability in critical political moments. All along, he has skilfully pivoted on similar retirement pronouncements before, keeping both allies and adversaries on the edge and guessing. 

Pawar's narrative of passing the torch to younger leaders, specifically positioning Yugendra Pawar for Baramati, could well be another strategic move to rally his support base amid the purported family rift triggered by Ajit Pawar. Remember, the stories of the nephew being planted in the Devendra Fadnavis' camp during the early morning swear-in and how he (the nephew) pulled the rug from under Fadnavis' feet and returned to his party fold before the incumbent chief minister had even managed to rub his sleep-deprived eyes.

Pawar's political conduct is such that people are forced to read something into it even when there is none. The timing of Pawar's statement to bow out of active politics coinciding with Ajit's defection and the upcoming assembly elections, raises a legitimate talking point: Is this a genuine exit or yet another tactic to consolidate the NCP's legacy under his proxy successors. Better still, another ploy to throw dust in the eyes of his adversaries; always unable to read his wrong 'uns.

It would not be altogether surprising that given his past hints, his retirement announcements might be a calculated manoeuvre to command greater authority over his party's trajectory. His refusal to retire during the 2023 NCP split, when he famously declared "Na tired hu, na retired hu", displayed a characteristic resistance to being sidelined -- especially by familial dissenters. When he announced his resignation as party chief last year, it was retracted as swiftly, illustrated his penchant for leaving his audience guessing.

In that light, Pawar's latest remarks could well serve his intentions of killing several birds with one stone: appeasing for generational leadership change, asserting his influence within the NCP amid Ajit Pawar's blow-hot-blow-cold power play, and perhaps most importantly, creating space for his allies without formally stepping down. The political chessboard he has crafted shows he has mastered the art of remaining in the game, even if he hints otherwise.

In politics, retirement is less a final act and more of a recurring plot twist. So, as Pawar hints at his last bow, there is every reason to surmise that it could be just another intermission before the next act. After all, in the grand theater of Sharad Pawar's career, curtains quite never close. They just get dramatically drawn back. Come rain or no rain.    

There is no itch-guard for fingering!

Raju Korti
Of the entire complex human anatomy, it is always the big players that hog the limelight -- the heart, the liver, the pancreas, the lungs -- et al, basking in their glow. The poor little finger hardly gets the nod. Nobody even thinks of writing an ode, forget a sonnet, for the finger. No one waxes poetic about its nimble dexterity or pointed poking. Little wonder, the finger suffers from a constant itch, a rebellion against its underappreciated existence. 

A GIF image

The finger, however, has its moments in the anatomy spotlight. All it has to do with its obtrusive personality is to is to tinker and probe posteriors. Except its owner's. So here is to the "finger" that does what comes best to its owners -- fingering. A tribute to the unsung hero and warrior vying for a place in human strife!

The finger, that diminutive, restless digit, has taken upon itself -- with understandable vengeance -- to get an itch for interference. All fingers have their roles, but the finger -- the one that can't sit still -- is uniquely equipped to poke, prod and stir with an almost hypnotic insistence. It has an inbuilt radar for naughtiness, trained to find the precise spot to press for maximum effect. You know what that spot is. I call it the G-spot.      

The finger is multi-talented and versatile. It is both a tool and a weapon, subtle yet relentless, with an itch that only intensifies with each jab. It has an innate ability for an unquenchable urge, forever in search of something -- or someone -- to butt in and justify its sadistic existence. The noble art of fingering transcends languages, cultures and generations. The itch turns the tool into a weapon by those who must poke and prod to keep the world buzzing with their unsolicited guidance.

The finger is "others' envy, owner's pride." You know their types. The itch inspires them for a mental nudge that leaves others scratching from their heads to their G-spot. The Finger Masters of the universe know there is no lotion to cure the irritation caused by them. Finger is a baton that can create a symphony of interruptions. More the chaffing, the sleeker it gets. Watching everyone squirm is their (seats, where else?) cherished sport and pastime.

The finger, like the terrorist, has no religion. It can be secular, liberal and conservative.  It is high time fingering is considered an international sport. With so many ardent practitioners and compulsive competitors, it should be given an Olympic status. Finger-waggers (my coinage, before you unleash your finger at me) deserve a special place in the hall of fame. If the cosmos has any sense of humour, it will bring a cutting edge to a competition where the war will will be fought with a finger of one hand while the other is busy shielding its own backside.              

While we live in a world where Finger Maestros reign supreme, ruling not with a heavy hand but a nimble finger, we must also understand that without them, life would be just a bit too finger(ing) free. So keep fingering. Ungli salaamat toh ...... 

Here is my ode to the finger and fingering.

Oh, the noble finger, restless and bold,
Forever itching, forever cold,
Heart and brain steal all the acclaim
You poke and prod your way to fame.
You ruffle feathers, you stir the broth
A reminder to all: I am here too.

Israel's UN rebuke, a growing rift in global diplomacy!

Raju Korti
Israel's decision to bar United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres from entering the country marks a significant diplomatic confrontation. It can be interpreted as a challenge to the UN's international standing. The move has come after Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz accused Guterres of being patently biased against Israel, calling him a 'persona non grata', a serious diplomatic term that signals a complete rejection of an individual's presence or involvement.

Antonio Guterres (un.org)

Guterres has expressed concerns regarding Israel's actions in recent conflicts, calling for humanitarian considerations and cautioning about civilian casualties. In the eyes of Israeli officials, these statement are one-sided, given the broader context of the conflict with Palestinian groups. By barring Guterres, Israel is sending a strong message that it will not tolerate what it perceives as unfair scrutiny, so what even if it came from the world's purported highest diplomatic office.

The recent escalation in the Israel conflict with Iran and Palestinian groups stems from a combination of long-standing regional tensions and more immediate triggers. Iran's support for Palestinian militant groups, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad, through funding, arms, and training, has intensified Israel's security concerns. Additionally, Israel's expanding settlements in the West Bank, coupled with military operations in Gaza, have provoked Palestinian groups, leading to retaliatory rocket attacks. Iran's broader regional strategy. aimed at countering Israeli influence through proxy forces across the Middle East, further fuels the conflict, creating a volatile cycle of provocations and military responses. This dynamic is compounded by failed peace negotiations and deep political divisions on both sides.      

While the move to bar the United Nations chief is being dubbed as a bold political manoeuvre, it is not entirely unprecedented for the countries to clash with UN chiefs. However, such a direct barring of Secretary-General is very rare. I do not know if this has happened ever before. Previous instances of tension between countries and the UN leadership have typically and conventionally played out through diplomatic channels or through public criticisms, but formal bans like this?

Israel believes that this is the Secretary General who has yet to denounce the massacre and sexual atrocities committed by Hamas murderers, nor has he led any efforts to declare them a terrorist organization. "A Secretary-General who gives backing to terrorists, rapists and murderers from Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran -- the mothership of global terror -- will be remembered as a stain on the history of UN. Israel will continue to defend its citizens and uphold its national dignity with or without Antonio Guterres". That is as unequivocal as it can get when diplomatically worded statements leave a lot for interpretation.   

This decision has broader implications for the UN's status as an impartial global body. The Secretary-General's role is to mediate conflicts and address issues impartially, but barring him from entering Israel undermines the UN's ability to act as an unbiased peace broker. Furthermore, this could set a precedent and encourage other nations with grievances against the UN to adopt similar tactics, potentially weakening the organization's influence. The UN as it is, doesn't have much sway and has been known to be a stooge of the US, which is even more befuddling.

In the broader geopolitical context, such actions risk deepening international divisions and further complicating efforts for peace in conflict zones. I feel this could be viewed both a symbolic and practical blow to the UN's authority on the global stage. The UN holds significant authority on the world stage stage as a central forum for international diplomacy, conflict resolutions, and humanitarian efforts. It brings together 193 member states to address global challenges like peacekeeping, climate change and human rights. However, its influence is often constricted by the competing interests of its most powerful members, particularly the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) -- United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom , and France -- who wield veto power. Among these, the US has traditionally held sway due to its financial contributions, military might, and diplomatic leverage.

The pitch is queered by other P5 members like China and Russia who often challenge US influence, particularly on issues related to international security, reflecting the geopolitical power dynamics that shape the UN's capacity to act. As a result, the UN has only moral authority and a broad mandate, and its practical influence is often shaped by the interests of these global powers. 

The weight of Existence: Finding clarity amidst crises

Raju Korti
Since reaching my mid-life, I find myself becoming increasingly philosophical, reflecting more deeply on the nature of existence and the purpose behind everything I do. The once-straightforward path of life now feels riddled with complex questions -- questions about meaning, mortality, and my place in the universe. This growing philosophical outlook has led to moments of existential crisis, where the routines and roles I had previously found comfort in seem empty and insignificant. Sometimes meaningless.

As life progresses -- if it really does -- I often feel caught in a tug-of-war between the pursuit of purpose and the overwhelming sense of life's inherent absurdity. This shift in my perspective has forced me to confront the darker aspects of existence, leaving me more cynical more than occasionally, yet more introspective. It is a mirage that I may or may not find. I do not care either ways. But in this struggle, writing has emerged as my way of processing these thoughts, providing me with a semblance of clarity and personal meaning amidst the uncertainty.

I have been thinking too much about Existentialism and Existential Crises of late. It has occured to my limited and amateur senses that Existentialism is a philosophy that confronts the very core of human existence. It asks the most unsettling of questions: Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Wittingly or unwittingly, these thoughts are shaping up my persona and psyche, often leaving me on the edge of doubt and cynicism. I have found myself grappling with existential crises more often than before -- times when life feels meaningless and every pursuit futile.

These crises have arrived in different forms. Sometimes, they creep in during moments of introspection, making me question the purpose of my actions and relationships. At other times, they have hit me like a storm when faced with the fleeting and ephemeral nature of life. The awareness of mortality has often weighed heavily on me, making it hard to find joy in the present or hope for the future. This constant questioning has made me cynical as I begin to see the futility of societal  structures, norms and the rat race we all are part of. The illusion of meaning we create to keep ourselves busy often feels like a farce.

However, despite the dark nature of these thoughts, they have also made me more self-aware. My personality has evolved into one that values authenticity over pretension. I have become more sensitive to the human condition. In a way, the struggle with meaninglessness has deepened my understanding of life's fleeting and transient nature, pushing me to seek moments of genuine connection and purpose. If you think this as the work of narcissistic mind, be it.

Writing has been my refuge, shelter and haven in their similar connotations. When the burden of these existential thoughts becomes too heavy, writing allows me to process, reflect, and sometimes even resolve them. Through (the act of) writing, I try to create my own meaning. Each word I exercise on the page serves as a reminder that while life's meaning may be subjective or elusive, I have the power to define or redefine it for myself, Writing gives me control over the chaos, making it an antidote to the existential despair I often feel. It helps me embrace the uncertainty, not as a burden but as a space for personal growth.

Amidst the questions and uncertainties, writing has become my anchor -- a way to navigate the turbulent waters of mid-life's philosophical reawakening. In each word I find meaning even when life feels meaningless. It offers me solace, a reminder that while I may not have all the answers, I have the power to create my own. Through writing, I am learning to embrace the unknown not as something to fear but as an invitation to grow, reflect and find beauty in the search itself. As I bore in one of my earlier blogs on Quantum Physics, the travel is more intriguing and rejuvenating than  the destination.                  

A mindless tactic called "mind games"

Raju Korti
In keeping with their utterly misplaced belief of "playing cricket the hard way" -- whatever that means -- Australian spinner Nathan Lyon has smugly predicted that Australians will whitewash India 5-0 in the ensuing Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Now Lyon is no soothsayer. He does what most overseas cricketers, especially the Australians have been doing doing, and pompously called as "mind games". It is an old hat that has already outlived its utility in times of high stakes cut-throatism.

A representational pic.

In the modern era of cricket, mind games have become increasingly redundant, meaningless, and largely ineffective. While psychological tactics once held value in unsettling opponents, today's professional cricketers armed with sports psychologists, data analysts and immense mental resilience, are far less susceptible to such strategies. If they can be called strategies at all.

Lyon's prediction of a 5-0 win for Australia is a classic example of mind games in a game that thrives on its so called "glorious uncertainties". The idea is to plant seeds of doubts in the opposition's mind. In this case, the ones on whose soil they come to play in an annual jamboree. Unfortunately for Lyon and his "hard playing" team-mates, India having made short work of Australia in consecutive Test series, including the famous 2020-21 victory in Australia despite a heavily depleted squad, is not going to be fazed by such comments. Players today are not only physically prepared but also mentally fortified to handle the pressures and verbal barrages that comes with high-stakes cricket.

Mind games also have this disconcerting trend of boomeranging on those who deploy them. Remember how during the 2019 Ashes Australian skipper Tim Paine famously sledged Jofra Archer trying to throw him off his game. Instead, Archer's response was swift and clinical. He produced a match-winning bowling spell that left the Australians reeling. Through their "mind games" Australia snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Just a day before, Bangladesh wicketkeeper aimed to throw the ball at Rishabh Pant's injured leg instead of the stumps. Pant gave it back to him with interest. Wasn't it the same Border-Gavaskar Trophy that after having made tall claims of routing India 4-1, Sehwag responded by saying India would thrash Australia 3-0. Which is what finally happened.

In a time where professional athletes are more attuned to the mental aspects of the game relying on mind games to gain advantage seems futile and counter-productive. Performance on the field now decisively overshadows attempts to rattle opponents through psychological warfare.

The proliferation of media and social platforms has diluted the impact of mind games. What was once a controlled tactic, exchanged within the confines of press conferences or the field is now quickly dissected and debunked by even half an analyst, commentator or fans online. Players often themselves respond with humour or dismissive gestures on social media further reducing the sting of such poor ploys. In this eco-system, actions on the field dominate the narrative, leaving verbal jabs more as fleeting distractions rather than strategic tools. Today's cricketers are trained to focus solely on performance, making mind games an outdated and ineffective practice. The ridicule that the team subjects itself to is the proverbial insult to the injury.

Forget sportsman's spirit. Rubbing a competitive rival the wrong way could potentially backfire. Moral of the story: Don't shoot off with your mouth. Let your game do all the talking.

India won't hand over Hasina on a platter!

Raju Korti
This is for the naysayers who have already started writing the epitaph of deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina and are arguing about her possible extradition back to Bangladesh as India's "diplomatic failure." The entire premise is based on the so called efficacy of an extradition treaty between two countries. Extradition treaties are good on paper but many countries use them selectively, not feeling under any obligation to honour them. I have doubts whether the present dispensation in New Delhi will be inclined to go by the rule book.

Hasina: A Wikipedia grab

Declaring Sheikh Hasina's stay in India and the possibility of her extradition as a "diplomatic failure" is premature and overlooks the complexities and expediencies of the ground realities. The circumstances surrounding her exile are fluid with numerous legal, political and humanitarian factors at play. I think India's decision-making process might be guided by careful consideration of regional stability, international law, and bilateral relations rather than by immediate pressure.

Prematurely labelling this situation as a failure is akin to writing an epitaph before all avenues have been explored. Diplomatic efforts are often known to require time, negotiation, and strategic patience, and India has a range of options to address this sensitive issue without compromising its stand on the global stage. If by any chance India does not honour the extradition treaty with Bangladesh, it will not be the first to dishonour the treaty. Nor will it be the last. Bigger and powerful countries do not have an exactly unblemished record in honouring extradition treaties. If the obligations of extradition treaty were to be fulfilled in toto without any extraneous considerations, India would have got its share of the culpable long time back. 

There is no doubt that India's situation regarding Sheikh Hasina's potential extradition presents a delicate diplomatic challenge but it need not be labelled a "diplomatic failure". India has a range of strategic options to navigate this scenario while maintaining its diplomatic integrity. With a man like S Jaishankar at the helm of foreign ministry, there is no way India will hand over Hasina to Bangladesh on a platter. 

To begin with, India might emphasize its commitment to human rights and international law. Before laughing this off, cynics will do well to realize that many countries are hypocritical about human rights and the efficacy of international law. They are just red herrings. By highlighting concerns about the fairness of any trial Sheikh Hasina might face in Bangladesh, India could argue that extradition would be  premature and unjust. This approach also allows India to position itself as a protector of democratic values and human rights which can resonate with the international community. It will also amount to speaking the same pompous language that Washington speaks. In doing so, India could avoid the perception of failing diplomatically by reframing the situation as one where moral principles guide its decision (not necessarily always policy).    

Secondly, India can leverage its role as a regional stabilizer. India has long been seen as a key player in maintaining stability in South Asia. In the present context, it could argue that Hasina's safety is crucial for regional peace, and any hasty decision could destabilize the region. Bangladesh itself is in throes of instability although an interim government is in place. The tenuousness of such governments is often under question going by past records. By positioning itself as a guardian of regional stability, India can rationalize a more cautious and prudent approach to the situation, sidestepping accusations of diplomatic failure.

Thirdly, India can engage in quiet diplomacy. By working behind the scenes with both Bangladeshi authorities and international partners, India can seek a resolution that satisfies all parties without publicly appearing to capitulate. Quiet diplomacy allows India to secure a breather and explore compromises such as seeking assurances from Bangladesh regarding the treatment of Hasina, thereby preserving the sanctity of its diplomatic standing.

Lastly, India can use international forums to delay any decision, buying time to negotiate a more favourable outcome. By seeking multilateral support, India can shift the narrative from one of potential failure to one of measured, responsible diplomacy. 

The crudest method would be to dishonour the treaty blatantly. Most of them, as they are, have some leeway. Extradition treaties are followed more in breach than practice. Having one is as good or as bad as having no extradition treaty. Who cares? That is the sum and substance of international law. 

On a tourist visa, a visitor, refugee, or asylum-seeker? What exactly?

Raju Korti
The clarification by the Government of India on Bangladesh's former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina staying in India longer than expected, once again brings into sharp focus the necessity for at least some workable protocol on the issue of refugees or asylum seekers. For the record, as it has been given to understand, Hasina's stay has been granted on visa and is not in the category of a refugee or asylum. The deposed Prime Minister is now in India along with her sister after fleeing from a chaos that has multiple dimensions to it.

Hasina, a file grab from Doordarshan.

There were reports that she might seek asylum in UK where her niece is a Labour Party member but it doesn't seem to be working out. She is now believed to be angling for the UAE or some amenable European country to provide shelter. If her safe departure is not working out in any country at the moment is because there are no refugee or asylum laws in India. The official take is that such laws have deliberately not been brought in for reasons that are not far to seek. The only exception is Dalai Lama, who enjoys his residence in India as government's policy decision.

The apprehensions are, asylum and refugee laws are a global issue, creating problems worldwide. Authorities fear that once refugee or asylum status is given, they demand rights and go to courts, creating more problems. The government's policy of allowing to stay someone in the country on a case-to-case basis, sums up the play-it-safe approach and not go in for a specific law. In India's case, it has a more serious implications given the kind of neighbours it is condemned to put up with. The UK is already ruing its decision and is contemplating of repealing the asylum law after being rocked by riots by immigrants/asylum seekers.

In my blog on September 9, 2015, I had stated that the bigger question was how should humanity deal with a crisis of plenty unleashed by wars, ethnic strife and civil warns. As the situations stands, thousands of such people cross borders to either find respite or foment trouble, and even at the governmental level, it is difficult to discern who is who. Opinions, of course, vary from case to case. From suggesting Europe and the US to step up to pleading rich Gulf countries using their enormous wealth, there is a spectrum, but international diplomacy and politics are not necessarily guided by compunctions or human conscience. 

As the issue of refugees or asylum seekers escalates into a profound global crisis, it accentuates the intricate interplay or geopolitical, economic and human factors, which means nations are in a state of perpetual dilemma of dealing with it. As conflicts, persecution and environmental disasters force millions to flee their homes, the international community faces mounting pressure to address the issue. The international response varies significantly, ranging from open-door policies to restrictive measures. This disparity not only highlights the uneven distribution of responsibility but also underscores the challenges of creating a cohesive, effective global strategy for refugee management. 

The ramifications of the refugee crisis extends far beyond immediate humanitarian concerns. Economically, countries hosting large refugee influx grapple with the costs of providing food and shelter, healthcare and education. This puts an untold burden on the state's coffers and infrastructural resources although there is an argument that refugees can contribute positively to the economy through labour and entrepreneurship. Above all, politically, the influx of refugees fuels debates about national security, cultural identity, and immigration policy, often leading to heightened tensions and polarizations within the societies.     

It is obvious that on a broader scale, the international legal framework designed to protect refugees faces significant strains. This is evident from the fact that the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establishing essential principles for refugee protection, has suffered from inconsistent implementation. Most countries find it tricky to adhere to these standards in the midst of popular sentiments and political pressures. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR) stands hampered because of limited resources and the complex realities of modern displacement.

India has learnt its lesson, thanks to Bangladesh that fragmented from Pakistan in 1971 when lakhs of refugees spilled across to India ostensibly to escape Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto's tyranny. India accommodated them all as guests in a humanitarian gesture. The irony of this all is the country India helped liberate is itself in throes of uncertainty. The refugee issue is now more of a security issue.

The teams are the same but the players are different and the pitch even more queered. A result is anybody's guess. Hasina is just a spot in that unpredictable pitch.

Existential crisis, an eternally tangled knot

Raju Korti
Caught in the throes of existential contemplation, I have been wading through a murky fog of uncertainty in recent years. People call it existential crisis triggered by life's trials and tribulations. I call it so because it is a period of profound doubt and confusion about the meaning, purpose and value of one's life. In my case, it stems from two outcomes of life's trials -- errors and tribulations. Each worse than the other.

Long bouts with philosophical introspection tell me that this is a feeling of alienation -- a feeling of empty distance and non-belonging. This feeling of "otherness", of being like everyone else around, is characterized by anxiety, loneliness, boredom, meaninglessness and absurdity. Most people understand it as the Hamlet's contemplation of "to be or not to be" as life suddenly holds no meaning with the attendant detachment towards very existence. I feel like isolated or am out of place. Not a philosopher by any stretch, I do not now if it is a vibe or a defect. What felt like solitude initially now turns out to be alienation.

Some people tell me this is absolutely normal and that the feeling of detachment is not a disease but actually a blessing in disguise. In my limited wisdom, I am not qualified to comment or decide about that in my perpetual confusion. What I know for sure is I do not feel connected with most of the people I meet in life. It is a trait that is commonly misunderstood as ego or self-image. In all probability, my disconnection results from the dissatisfaction with what my life is. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how it ought to be, either!

A psychologist has given an interesting perspective. He believes this is my inner guidance leading me to what my body and soul needs. Getting away from people sometimes gives you time and space to realign yourself. I do not know how that can happen but am inclined to think that my sense of detachment has arisen from two factors. When you don't feel you are being heard or matter, or have an experience that prevents you from involving yourself. I am amazed by the inherent contrast that existentialism owes its very existence to trials, errors and tribulations. "Who am I" or "What am I" are questions that render everything else in life almost meaningless.

I do not know if I am one of those who find themselves drifting towards a state of detachment and meaninglessness. Trials and tribulations spare no one. I have had personal struggles, professional setbacks and a constant flow of unforeseen obstacles. I would be lying if I said these all tested my resilience or pushed my boundaries. I preferred to run away from them, the adversities never bringing in their wake even an iota of empathy. 

The more I introspect on them, the deeper I am mired by existential questions. I doubt anyone, deeply submerged in today's material, worldly and consumerist mindset, would have the time and inclination to be bothered but life is a great leveller. I am sure one day, they would be as clueless, feel as meaningless and live in a vacuum as I do now. 

The only bottom line to life is it has to go on. For, life itself is detached. Once you make peace with the fact that it is just a mosaic of moments where you dance between grasping the present and letting go of the past, you either become a philosopher or a practical consumerist. I am neither, and hence the existential question of "to be or not to be"!

A knock-out punch for the Trophy Champions

Raju Korti
Pakistan's desperation at India not keen to play the Champions Trophy there is of its own making. While there is no official word that India team will not travel to Pakistan, it is a foregone conclusion. It is not even a sensitive and controversial topic anymore.

Pakistan finds itself in a bind not just because of the strained political relations and security concerns India voices during every cricketing event that the former wants to host. Its angst is India's refusal to play in Pakistan will could provoke Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to follow suit on similar concerns. Perhaps the biggest slap on its face is even a country once an ally and now in constant ferment like Afghanistan is poking ridicule at its ability to provide security to visiting players.

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), forever mired in administrative hassles with self-styled upstarts coming and going out of its ruling dispensation, cannot do anything to turn things around. To make matters worse, for the PCB will continue to stare at its scarcely ringing cash registers, and even the International Cricket Council (ICC), can do precious little to thwart BCCI's money clout. Revenues will take a severe hit and the entire purpose of hosting the trophy will stand defeated from their point of view.

The Pakistan Cricket Board just does not seem to shed this mindset of mixing sport with politics and that a tit-for-tat policy will not work at all. If India has also been seen to be mixing sport with politics, it is of reaction and not action. What the Pakistan Cricket Board must do, if it works at all, is to lobby and convince other cricketing boards to be on their side and hope India does not ride rough shod with the ICC just watching the tamasha. To rub salt on its wound, the present BCCI chief Jay Shah might take over the ICC reins. It cooks Pakistan's goose completely.

Pakistan, one senses, is itching to beat India in Pakistan and bask in a limelight that has deprived it for long. In venues elsewhere across the world, it has had the mortification of losing all the matches, and in their misplaced pride, a victory on its own soil could salvage some of that pride. To its horror, even that looks impossible given their team's overhyped prowess belied by lacklustre performances. The reasons are far too many and well known to deserve mention. 

Pakistan faces security challenges mostly from home-grown terrorism and instability which they habitually blame it on non-state actors. The non-state actors merge seamlessly into state's own at their convenience. While sporting events, like cricket, tend to become political symbols or tools in diplomatic maneuevring. There is no cricket between India and Pakistan. It is just a war fought on another turf with a façade of apparent bonhomie.

For a country perennially in throes of political and economic turmoil, Pakistan seems oblivious to the logistical challenges like travel accommodation and security arrangements. These become significantly grave that at times, threats have emanated from time to time about killing Indian cricketers. The PCB has itself been embroiled in one bitter controversy over the other. It must first set its own house in order before it equips to handle the bigger problem it seeks to address.

Voices from across the border have been their usual bluster and bravado. The championship will go on even if Indian team doesn't go to Pakistan. But who will watch and from where will the revenue come? Moves are already afoot that the BCCI is requesting the ICC to move its India matches to Sri Lanka or Dubai. India has not played a bilateral series with Pakistan since 2008 and by no stretch it looks possible now with the rise in recent terror activities in Kashmir. Although the BCCI, itself an autonomous body, has put the ball in Central Government's court, there is no way the latter will take the risk. On its part, the ICC stands to incur huge loss in terms of broadcast media rights and brand revenue. 

If South Africa could be kept out of international cricket for an internal matter like apartheid, then it should be clear as day. Terrorism is a global issue and Pakistan needs to be made a spectator until this rot stops. Moreover, Pakistan has only recently received an International Monetary Fund bailout and its ability as hosts suspect. All the talk about Indian cricketers being loved and will be warmly welcomed is a baloney that deceives none including Pakistan itself.

Where is the question of burying the hatchet when the hatchet is doing all the talking?

Of Modi's spirituality and the intrigue of Quantum Physics!

Raju Korti
For all the vilification he endures in different fora all the time, one thing that always stands out for me about Prime Minister Narendra Modi is his uncanny ability to get people from other walks into his fold that is often dubbed as an exercise in PR. Those with jaundiced political eye might believe this to be a political blog, simply because it involves a political leader, but far from it. The point I am trying to labour over here is the connect between Spirituality and Quantum Physics. 

Is consciousness the bottom line?

In his visit to Vienna, Austria, Modi found it opportune to meet, among other people, Nobel Laureate Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger. After the two met, Zeilinger said: "We had a very pleasant discussion. We discussed about spiritual things, we talked about possibilities of quantum information, quantum technology, and about the basic fundamental ideas of Quantum Physics." For the record, my understanding about Quantum Physics is marginally better than Spirituality, which is why the interaction drew my attention. 

I do not know how much can Modi hold forth on something like Quantum Physics, but I have little doubts about the man's penchant to veer Zeilinger around his viewpoint. He found Modi to be a deeply spiritual person and wished leaders across the world should imbibe that feature that he brings to his demeanour and discussions. "I think this is a feature which more leaders in the world should have today...The point is that you support the gifted young people to follow their own ideas and from them the really new ideas come. That is something which can happen in every country, certainly in India, the Austrian physicist said. Zeilinger's whose work in Quantum Physics is considered path-breaking, made no secret of his admiration for India's efforts in the National Quantum Mission and how the ecosystem for technology and innovation is being gainfully nurtured.

I believe that the connect between Spirituality and Quantum Physics has intrigued thinkers from both realms for decades, offering a fascinating intersection where science and metaphysics meet. Though there are some who abstain studiously from being too vocal about it, Quantum Physics, with its Principle of Uncertainty, non-locality, and the role of the observer, challenges traditional notions of reality and suggests a universe that is more fluid and interconnected than previously thought.

Spirituality across various traditions and beliefs, often posits a fundamental unity underlying existence, where consciousness plays a central role in shaping reality. This parallels with Quantum Physics' assertion that observation influences the outcome of quantum events, suggesting a deeper link between consciousness and the physical world. Concepts such as the interconnectedness of all things, as found in spiritual teachings, find resonance in quantum entanglement, where particles are believed to instantaneously influence each other regardless of distance.  

Skepticism and apprehensions obtain because these connections remain largely speculative and philosophical. However, they provide a fertile ground for exploring the nature of reality beyond the confines of traditional scientific and spiritual boundaries, inviting a deeper inquiry into the mysteries that underpin this universe.  

The National Quantum Mission in India was launched with the ambitious goal of advancing quantum science and technology to propel the country into a leadership position in this cutting-edge field. The mission has made significant strides in fostering research collaborations through state-of-the-art infrastructure and skilled workforce. It has catalyzed research projects across domains, including quantum computing, quantum communication, and quantum materials. While challenges remain, the National Quantum Mission can set the stage for future advancements in pivotal areas of science and technology.

As Modi leads India, his vision seems to intertwine threads of  tradition and innovation, creating a tapestry where Spirituality and Quantum Physics can meet in a dance of progress and possibility. The first step should be begin with breaking the Mann Ki Baat mode to to Walk the Talk one. Quantum Physics might delve into the bizarre and counterintuitive world where particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously but Spirituality provides -- or is supposed to provide -- the anchor for inner stability amidst life's turbulence.

Parallel lines have so much in common.  It is a shame they will never meet unless you bend the rules a bit. The same might go for Spirituality and Quantum Physics. Spirituality and science can converge when both seek to understand the mysteries of existence through different yet complementary lenses. Modi and Zeilinger can do their bidding, but to me, intrigue carries bigger charm than the finding, if any. 

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat: Tumhine dard diya hai tumhi dawa dena...

Raju Korti
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), widely and rightly regarded as the parent body of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is believed to have finally shed its superficial skin of being patently apolitical. From the days of its founder Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar  to its present-day chief Mohan Bhagwat, the change, though subtle, has also been remarkable with Balasaheb Deoras (Sarsanghchalak between June 1973 and March 1994, as the turning point according to my estimate.

Mohan Bhagwat, Wikipedia grab

The world's largest voluntary organisation, billed along with the BJP as "brotherhood in saffron", has been more than subtle in the criticism of the BJP after the 2024 elections, although the relations between the two have been marked with unease at times. The RSS steadfastly maintains that it is apolitical but remember, the dual membership issue that sunk the Janata Party government post the Emergency in 1977. The controversy cleverly fuelled by Indira Gandhi (then in opposition), was latched onto by the likes of Madhu Limaye and Charan Singh's stooge Raj Narain, but since then, slowly, the RSS which had been shunning the limelight, changed its course under the stewardship of Balasaheb Deoras and sought to expand its presence through the (then) Jan Sangh. But it was handicapped by its pariah status after Gandhi's assassination. 

It took less than three years for the euphoria generated by the Indira's defeat in the 1977 general elections to give way to power-hungry politicians, personal ambitions punctuated by irreconcilable ideological contradictions.  

Its political arm, the Jan Sangh began to look for ways to gain greater political legitimacy and in Jayprakash Narayan, the Socialist veteran, it found an opportunity. JP was able to overcome his initial reservations and supported the 1974 students agitation in Bihar spearheaded by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (the students' wing of the BJP). JP was then no stranger to working with the RSS having partnered with its senior ideologue Nanaji Deshmukh during Vinoba Bhave's Bhoodan movement.

Much water has flown under the bridge since then but the RSS under Deoras, shed its earlier apolitical status, and I clearly recall he made an out-and-out political speech at the annual Dussehra rally in Nagpur -- the first clear indication that it asserted its status as the parent body of the BJP.  Over the years, from the days of more hawkish Advani to the moderate Vajpayee, RSS has been critical of the BJP's dominance, especially in the post-Modi era. Murmurs have grown into more open resentment and the RSS' hands-off approach has been conspicuous in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections with Uttar Pradesh as its epicenter. The BJP's dismal showing, going by its earlier dominance, has broken the wheel of tandem rolling for decades albeit with occasional creaks.

Mohan Bhagwat has been more than vocal, making caustic remarks about political parties, his remarks coming at a time when it is being intensely speculated whether the RSS had taken a hands-off approach and not supported the BJP whole-heartedly during the recent elections. Perhaps the most significant and pointed remark that he made was: "A true sevak maintains dignity. He follows the decorum while working. He does not have the arrogance to say 'I did this work.'. It was understood that this jibe was aimed at Modi, who the RSS feels, is becoming bigger for his boots. In his speeches, Modi has often referring to himself as "Pradhan Sevak".

Bhagwat's remarks, equivocal as always, once again brings to the fore the influence Sangh wields over BJP. Although to me, there is nothing new in this discussion, the RSS-BJP ecosystem has taken a beating, given that his comments came after BJP fell way short of its "ab ki baar 400 paar" estimate and the subsequent inability of Modi to take major decisions taking a hit. true to his character, Modi, has been non-chalant and has still managed to have an edge in a coalition that leans on a traditional turncoat like Nitish Kumar. For the RSS, it is not about Modi holding sway in the wake of the electoral setback but the man's unchallenged paramountcy and the scales tipping from Nagpur to Ahmedabad. Modi has shown penchant to give a short shrift to the RSS while he took all those major decisions since 2019.

Modi's growing aura, especially his image as one-man-army, seems to have upset the RSS compass. The RSS leaders are peeved that BJP was complacent during the elections. The results vindicated their view as they came as a "reality check" when the one-man-army's juggernaut was challenged by the riff raff opposition parties. There has also been a growing resentment sense within the RSS that the BJP had been inducting turncoats from the Opposition into the BJP, diluting its core ideology. The distance between the two widened with probably the least liasioning seen this time. 

In the midst of this unease between the two, it is not altogether surprising that a large section of common sympathisers are concerned that Bhagwat chose to make some "distressing statements" . Their concern is at the tone and tenor of his remarks and how this posturing could be detrimental to the country's progress. They surmise that RSS chiefs are not known to make loose comments and therefore cannot be taken lightly. Modi himself has risen through RSS cadres but his rise in political stature and giving RSS a short shrift, has stuck out like a sore thumb.

Bhagwat's statement that Opposition parties are 'pratipaksh', not 'virodhi' (opponents and their view should be considered favourably) is being viewed as rather unorthodox, and by default, perceived more as a hand of friendship extended towards Congress, the Left, the TMC (RSS' new-found ally), the SP, the RJD who have often lampooned the RSS and BJP at every opportunity. Given this backdrop, Bhagwat's apparent amicability towards the same parties that called Modi and Savarkar worse epithets in open fora, has been befuddling to say the least. It stands in stark contrast to his belief in governance based on consensus -- a tradition followed by former PMs Indira, Rajiv and non-prime ministerial leader Rahul Gandhi more in breach than practice with the latter tearing up an ordinance that a Prime Minister from his own party had got promulgated. 

There should be no prizes for guessing that Bhagwat's indignation stems from outgoing BJP president J P Nadda who inelegantly cocked a snook at the RSS and its sidelining in ticket distribution. While as one who heads the BJP's parent body and a father figure, Bhagwat's feelings can be understood. it still is unbecoming of someone making remarks out of pique, one of which implied that BJP's language during the election was divisive.

In my close observation of the mindsets unveiling on the social media, I have seen concerted and orchestrated campaigns by nationalists and right-wingers in condemning Modi. From questioning his image as Hindutva icon to questioning his credentials as PM, his education and even his caste, these on-and-off posts have been well-pitched and well-placed to whip up anti-Modi sentiment. Ratan Sharda's article followed by his interview on a national channel buttresses that point.   

As my close colleague and friend Seema Kamdar, a veteran journalist points out: "Bhagwat's offensive is counter-productive as well as counter-intuitive. It is self-destructive at best. The RSS is playing a dangerous game. We must condemn all machinations to divide the nationalist vote and thereby divide the country vehemently and unequivocally. There is a lot of talk about how this campaign is connected to Bhagwat's leaning towards Maharashtrians and his fear that the reins were slipping away into the hands of other Indians. If that is the case, more than anyone else, Bhagwat needs to worry about creating divisions in the country's polity."

The agenda to bring Modi down by dividing the nationalist vote is fraught with serious consequences. Whether one likes it or not, there is no other individual, and certainly not in the RSS, who has the charisma and appeal of Modi. Bhagwat needs to make peace with this fact. Leave aside Modi, all of BJP's goodwill generated so far will get consigned to the dustbins of history and hurtle the country in the throes of disarray and uncertainty. That the mask of opposition unity will fall off  in no time in the mad quest for power, is a no-brainer. 

To be fair to Bhagwat, his anger and consternation at Amit Shah and Company admitting tainted politicians or his alleged overuse of the agencies like Enforcement Directorate (ED) might have been been ethically wrong, but instead of checkmating Modi, Shah and Nadda with a public outburst, it would been more in tune with RSS's avowed dignity to work out solutions bilaterally rather than resorting to a posturing that may not be a good augury for the country's stability. I have seen the RSS cadres doing exemplary work without any fuss during major disasters. No harm in pushing Modi back but the means adopted by the RSS chief are not in consonance.

It is quite remarkable that the after lows of Vajpayee-Sudarshan era, the ties between the RSS and BJP had become much more cordial after Bhagwat took over. The two were accommodative of each other's ideas and demands. Not long ago, Modi and Bhagwat were seated next to each other during the Ram Temple inauguration in January last. On the face of it, the RSS influence may have waned a bit in Modi 3.0 but then, four chief ministers appointed recently have strong RSS links. A lot will depend now on whom BJP elects as the new party president. Remember, the first discord came when Nadda replaced Nitin Gadkari as party chief. The downscaling of Gadkari in the course of events that followed has to be also seen from this perspective.       

From all accounts, the RSS and the BJP are joined at the hip. The hip has suffered a dislocation and needs a corrective surgery. Bhagwat should himself be that surgeon.

Bharat Vs India Vs Hindustan! The fight is on!

Raju Korti
The recent overemphasis by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on the use of "Hindustan" as against its other counterparts like "Bharat" or "India" have expectedly stirred a hornet's nest. But a disclaimer in place first! This blog is not about Rahul Gandhi per se but political leaders' penchant to twist the words to their advantage by poking people's brittle emotional and political conscience. 

It is no surprise that in "India, that is Bharat", a phrase that former MP and journalist Baburao Patel used extensively to make his proclivities clear, the tendency to politicise every issue has become ingrained in the fabric of public discourse. From social issues to cultural events and even matters relating to scientific research or technological advances, there is a marked propensity among political parties and their supporters to view everything through a partisan lens. As a natural corollary, this politicization often leads to polarized debates where the focus shifts from the substance of the matter at hand to scoring political brownie points or subtly reinforcing ideological stances. Among other things, it hinders constructive dialogue and problem-solving, potentially overshadowing history, genuine concerns and solutions inclined to boost political agendas.

Politicians are known to use "Bharat," "Hindustan," or "India" strategically to appeal to different sentiments and audiences for political gain. Behind the specious terming, there are subtle messages to convey so they carry to the right quarters. All the three have a historical and cultural context but politicians have fine-tuned the art of creating controversies where none (should) exist.

Remember, days before the much anticipated G20 summit was scheduled to begin in Delhi, the dinner invite mentioning "President of Bharat" sparked widespread controversy. It was a political full toss  (or a yorker?) delivered to a class of people who revel in conspiracy theories and love to ready everything between the lines. Knowing Modi's predilection and talent to finger his opponents, this was quickly interpreted as "India" would be officially named as "Bharat" in the ensuing session of the parliament. That didn't happen but always ready to rub salt on the opposition's festering wounds, I am sure the PM just derived some fiendish pleasure.

Following the G20 dinner invites, the Modi's visit to Indonesia for the 20th ASEAN India Summit and 18th East India Summit, added fuel to the fire by referring to him as the "Prime Minister of Bharat". In all the indignation, it was forgotten that this was not the first time "Bharat" was used in an official document. When Modi attended the 15th BRICS summit in South Africa and then went on an official visit to Greece thereafter, the government notification referred to him as "Prime Minister of Bharat". The use of "Bharat" as against the commonly used "India" by the international community, was dubbed as a "symbol of colonial slavery."

Without quoting Shakespeare's trite, each of these words have their own origin. In its Constitution, the world's most populous country has been mentioned as "India" and "Bharat". "Hindustan" is believed as the land of the Hindus. It is an attribution that comes most Muslim countries, especially referred to as such by Pakistan. The use of "Hindustan" is loaded with political and religious overtones that can be understood and let pass, unlike "Bharat" which has acquired a political tinge. 

The words "Hindustan", "Bharat" and "India carry a deep cultural, historical and political implications in the context of Indian subcontinent. From time to time, these are twisted and used out-of-context to give it a glaring political hue. Politicians are known to have used "Bharat" or "Hindustan" to invoke a sense of cultural pride or national identity rooted in historical and cultural heritage. No prizes for guessing these appeal to sentiments of nationalism and cultural unity, especially among conservative or traditional voters.

Depending on the context and audience (read constituency), these are also tossed around or sautéed to align with specific religious communities. To that extent, "Hindustan" signifies a Hindu-majority identity (or a more pointed reference to the minorities), appealing to voters who prioritize religious affiliation in their political choices. The choice between "Bharat" and "India" carry a subtle political hint where "Bharat" is often associated with a more traditional or indigenous identity, contrasting with "India" which is perceived as a legacy of colonialism. Often, these are conveniently interchanged to appeal to different demographics.

In multilingual and culturally diverse "India" "Bharat" or "Hindustan" are used in regions where these terms resonate more deeply due to historical, linguistic or cultural reasons. Politicians cunningly shape historical perspectives to fit their political narrative. The manipulation of these terms is a reflection of the complex socio-cultural and political landscape of the country. Leveraging them to gel with target audiences and strengthening political prospects come with a hefty price that the country pays in terms of their divisive outcome. 

All three have a distinct etymology and I would not labour over them for obvious reasons but vulnerable population needs to understand the political tapestry of the Indian sub continent and their implications. A simplistic view of these terms, knowing their cultural dynamics, would perhaps take away all the vicious sting that politicians bring to them with their ulterior motives but that is impossible where people cud on issues that don't need too much to be read into.

As a fundamental rule, I have used all three from time time to time in different but non-controversial contexts. I clearly remember, I had used "Hindustan" in an attribution to Asaduddin Owaisi and some overzealous elements on Facebook, pounced on me as if I had coined the word. Owaisi and his ilk get away with these (things) but those commenting from the sidelines with zero vested interests face the flak. Do I need to say more?

Its not climate change, its human callousness.

Raju Korti
I am fundamentally opposed to the term "vagaries of nature". It is an expedient way to blame the Nature for all the ills humans suffer. The phrase often implies a randomness or unpredictability in natural occurrences, suggesting that Nature operates without discernible pattern or purpose. As a compulsive student of Climate Physics (my own coinage, of course because it is never taught as a proper subject in science curricula), I find the term patently flawed in its implication. 

A file grab from the United Nations website.

No disasters are artificial, they are all man-made, including those laid at the doorstep of what is being bandied as "climate change". Admitted, Nature. though sometimes complex and sometimes unpredictable, operates within the framework of intricate systems and laws that govern the universe. I call it Climate Physics that hasn't reached the depths of human understanding. It is not altogether surprising that there are very few who observe the phenomena from weather patterns to geological processes rather than treat them as mere whimsical fluctuations.

Dismissing natural disasters as vagaries undermines all serious efforts in scientific principles at play and diminishes the awe-inspiring intricacy of the natural world. In the hurry to dismiss the issue with a tinge of scrappy research, it is often forgotten that it is through rigorous study and exploration that we uncover the order and beauty within what might initially appear as chaos. Climate Physics doesn't get the attention it deserves and the efforts to understand "climate change" often gets lost in a maze of confusing facts and figures that vary geographically but with little efforts to co-relate them and present a plausible model. In simpler words, we are just not able to delve deeper into the fascinating mechanisms that govern our plant and universe.

It is no secret that humans are primarily responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Greenhouse gases are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last 50 years and humans love to pay more lip service to the cause than any steps on ground. It is obvious that the efforts to contain or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and bring a semblance of order to rampaging Nature, have been significantly less. Governments across the globe are either indifferent or do not think the issues is weighty enough to expend money and worthwhile research. Far from being inclement, Mother Nature has been kind, giving humans umpteen hints that there is scope for mitigation.

Most people think climate change means warmer temperatures. That, however, is just a superficial exterior and beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where every other parameter is connected, change(s) in one area has the potential to influence changes in all others. The adverse and all-pervasive effects of climate change have been spelt out with regular alarm -- intense droughts (dry and wet), water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms, declining bio-diversities, and the unprecedented but ubiquitous heat waves all over the world. The last one was the dominant news other than our pathological obsession for Politics.

The flip side of rising presence of greenhouses gases means rise in carbon footprint, causing global temperatures to soar. The scientific consensus should be clear: Human actions are the dominant driver of the perceived climate changes over the past century with profound implications for ecosystems, weather patterns, and human societies worldwide.

At the cost of being a naysayer, I will dare say that further warming of our atmosphere is now impossible to avoid. It appears to have reached an irretrievable point-of-no-return. While the ecosystems get destroyed, the Earth will become inhabitable for many species, leading to extinctions and redistribution of species, threatening food production with alien pests and diseases. Man, in his superior wisdom might manage to outlive a bit longer but the doomsday clock is ticking rapidly and how! If the consequences of climate change -- impacts on agricultural economies like India -- are especially dangerous for the poorest. Nature will not leave it to crooked politicians to eradicate poverty.

The potential human cost will be catastrophic that no budgets will be able to take care of. A rise in sea levels threatens hundreds of millions in coastal communities and cities across the globe -- our own Mumbai, now billed as the third biggest city in the world -- at risk. Epidemics could force large-scale migrations by 2050 which is just 25 years away. The next generation will be condemned to watch and endure as humans cause Mother Earth's degeneration.

Coastal areas around the world are diverse and vital ecosystems where land meets the sea. These regions are characterized by a dynamic interface of land, water, and air, supporting unique biodiversity and human livelihoods, they also play a crucial role in global economies, providing resources like fisheries, tourism opportunities, and transportation hubs. As these take a hit, they face significant challenges such as erosion, pollution, and climate change impacts, underscoring the need for sustainable management and conservation efforts to protect these invaluable environments for future generations.

I read in a journal that according to latest research evaluating 44 countries, emissions arising as a result of population growth wiped out two-thirds of the reduction in emissions arising from greater energy efficiency between 1990 and 2019. Meanwhile, solutions such as reforestation (which in India are more of  cosmetic photo ops) may be more difficult to implement with more people needing food and land. In its landmark report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) specifically identified high population growth as a "key impediment" to hitting the critical target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

The projections on "climate change" are scary. it has been overemphasized that global surface temperatures have increased 1.5 degrees F (0.8 C) on an average with a rise in acceleration in the last 50 years. The culprits are far too many and well known to bear any repetition. The IPCC report vindicates my contention that the turning point has been since 1970, until which, Nature was well within its limits. Satellite observations suggest that the rate of sea level rise globally since 1992 has been twice as rapid as it was during the previous century.

Climate action calls for significant concerted efforts globally and need enhanced financial investments by governments and businesses. But there is no will, and therefore, no way. Governments have money for populist measures but none for the Earth's population. Green economy is a mere figure of speech. A complex interplay of factors that include political inertia, vested interest in fossil fuel industries and societal reluctance to make necessary lifestyle changes will thwart any reversal. 

Short-term economic priorities often take precedence over long-term environmental sustainability, leading to insufficient policies and investments in renewable energy and carbon reduction strategies. Moreover, the global nature of the issue makes international cooperation and consensus challenging to achieve, further exacerbating the problem. We are only condemned to watch as climate crisis and its impacts devastate ecosystems and human societies worldwide.

Of spinning electoral narratives!

Raju Korti
If there is one thing that I dread before, during and after every election, it is the prospects of listening to the lengthy, pompous and holier-than-thou political narratives that "experts" in the media dish out in their bid to outdo each others. As I sat through the election coverage across TV channels yesterday, it was nothing different with usual and predictable noises from predictable people with predictable views -- all in the name of being "spin doctors". It is one therapy guaranteed to leave you sicker than before.

Pic representational: You can choose your studio!

As a seasoned journalist of over 45 years who has extensively covered parliamentary, assembly and local self government elections since 1980, travelling with prime ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Kumar Gujral and many union/state ministers, MPs and MLAS, even connecting with grassroots, I can vouch that readers who base their opinions on these narratives are first class hypocrites who are compromised because of their naivete and poor perception. They watch TV and newspapers (of their choice) to feel comfortable with the narratives that suit their prejudiced minds.    

Trying to keep your head on your shoulders listening to the "spin doctors" has to be an acid test of your tolerance and endurance. It is where truth travels in diametrically opposite directions, often losing its way in the trajectory. Taking names serves no purpose as they all are prisoners of their ideologies and preferences that send their good conscience on a sabbatical. I can tell you first hand how tricky, if not tough, it can be to spin narratives because there is no room for objectivity and unvarnished truth in the complex algorithm of politics.

Trying to untangle political narratives is like trying to follow a squirrel on caffeine high meandering through a maze of mirrors. You think you are on to something, but then suddenly you are lost in a convoluted hodgepodge of conflicting facts and interpretative ballets. As a spin doctor, you twirl your words like spaghetti on fork, hoping you will swallow their junk without realizing it is just a mass of tangled, frigged mess. 

Those on the television are a class unto themselves. The TV studios are a circus where the clowns wear suits and the lions replaced by talking heads roaring their two cents louder than a stadium full of unruly soccer fans. Don't take them to heart, and if you do, pop a sorbitrate before you get the heart-burns. In the circus of politics, the only thing that is certain is the truth is made a contortionist. In the grand carnival of politics, there's a ride that stands out among the rest, where truth takes a backseat and spin reigns supreme -- the Spin Cycle. If you don't strap yourselves in, it is a guaranteed roller coaster.

Picture this: A well-lit studio room filled with an eclectic mix of politicians, strategists, and spin doctors, all huddled around a colossal spinning wheel. On this wheel are various narratives, ranging from "Economy Booming" to "Opponent's Gaffe Extravaganza" -- all with the seasoned tempering of a crazy flurry of hands and what is generally acknowledged as a benchmark in noise: fish market. 

The journey is all familiar. The spinning game begins with the very topic of the debate. The way it is twisted is like rigged fight where the ringmaster anchor has already made up the mind who is going to win. The first stop is the blame game. Panellists showcase their gymnastics skills contorting themselves into absurd positions to deflect blame from their own mishaps. 

If you weren't entertained enough, the soundbite shuffle follows where in linguistic dexterity, panellists craft catchy but selective soundbites. If it is about rising unemployment, they will chant "jobs, jobs, jobs" as if repeating it ad nauseum would create employment opportunities out of thin air. Narratives also give ample opportunities for a "Scandal Spin" as part of crisis management -- all in a friendly exchange of pleasantries. The anchor is the King of all, including the panellists and their narratives. 

If the going gets tough to the point where shouting panellists yanking hair off their heads, there is a comic break in the flip-flop boogie woogie. They all come prepared to display flawless somersaults. TV Talk shows allow them them to showcase these skills in a spectacle of flexibility that would make even the most seasoned contortionist green with envy.

As the Spin Cycle whirls on, it is the poor viewer who ends up wondering in the maze of "facts and figures" what is stranger, fact or fiction. So, dear friends, if you are condemned to watch these spinning tracks -- like I was throughout yesterday -- and you find yourself caught in the dizzying whirlwind of political rhetoric, just remember to hold onto your hats and keep your skepticism close at hand. After all, in the Spin Cycle, what goes around often comes around -- just with a slightly different twist.

For the record, spinning convenient narratives is no big deal if you already have a twisted mind. As I would often tell my students in the college: First get your facts right and then think of how to twist them!

Ego boosters called "followers" on social media!

Raju Korti
There is a tantalising and deceptive undertone to the word "follower". The advent of social media and its inanities have produced this species which in simple words refers to people who chase someone's thoughts. The word "leader" is implicit in the word "follower". Followers exist because there are leaders. There is a breed on social media that arrogates to itself the status of a leader because everyone in their list is a "follower" and not a "friend".

I find it less amusing and more irritating that people who have added you to their "friend list" of their own sweet will show in their profiles as YOU who is following them. So you are a follower and not a friend because the choice of words brings this distinction to the fore. Adding someone as a friend and then showing him/her as your follower is a cheap trick to corner some self glorification. 

For the record, I do not follow anyone and I have zero interest in having such bloated egos in my fold. Follower? Really? They can keep their self-assumed importance to themselves and live lives of delusional grandeur. They are narcissists in the guise of leaders of public opinion.

Followers are the faithful minions, loyal subjects of one's digital kingdom (fiefdom if you prefer). They hang on your tweets/posts, eagerly awaiting your next 280-character stroke of genius and share it like it is the gospel truth. They are like the sidekicks in our digital superhero saga, cheering their "leaders" from the sidelines with emojis and some wisecracks.

In contrast, "friends" have almost become mythical creatures you encounter even outside the realm of social media. In a dopamine rush of notifications, they will also dislike your tweets and posts as much as they like them to keep your egos in check. On the other hand, "followers", to me, lurk in the depths of one's list , adding a touch of intrigue to someone's social media escapades.

To the self-proclaimed leaders of public opinion (euphemistically calling themselves as digital creators), followers are like Wi-Fi to their Netflix binge. They serve their purpose of validating their existence in the vast digital wilderness, reminding us that even in the age of algorithms and cat videos, there are people out there who actually care about your two cents. Or at least who care enough to hit that much sought-after blue button.

So here is a salute to faithful followers without whom the social media empire would be just a lonely desert island in the sea of cyberspace.

To all my followers, near and far
You click and tap, you like and share
Your support for me beyond compare.

Through memes and tweets we march on,
In this digital world where we all belong,
You boost my ego, make me feel grand,
With every follow(er), I fist-pump and stand.
The more in my fold, bigger my bandwagon.

From sunrise to sunset, you're always there,
Reading the rambles of my digital flight.
Through ups and downs, you remain true
My dear followers, you are my alternate ego.

So here's to you my loyal online crew,
With every click you help me renew,
My faith in the power of virtual bonds.

You compose my online journey,
make it a savoury virtual toast,
My followers, you are the ones I boast. 

PS: I do not have any followers. Just "friends".