Facebook’s ‘Digital Royalty’: "Digital Creators" and their "followers"

Raju Korti
There was a time when Facebook was a cheerful adda for long-lost friends, old classmates, ex-colleagues, and that uncle who sends ‘Good Morning’ messages before sunrise. You could share photos, poke fun, disagree, even argue; and yet remain friends. The unwritten rule was simple: friendship meant affection, not algorithmic hierarchy.

But now, as I scroll through my feed, I realise that Facebook has been quietly colonised by a new tribe: the Digital Creators. These self-styled geniuses are convinced that everyone else exists only to “follow” them. Their profiles proudly declare, “1.8K followers, 123 following”. As if the fewer they follow, the more divine their existence.

My notifications keep telling me: “So-and-so has highlighted a post for you.” Really? Highlighted? As if it is some royal proclamation. And when I open the post, I find that I have been automatically demoted from friend to follower. In other words, a humble spectator whose sacred duty is to clap, like, and share.

(Pic representational)

Let me confess: I hate this word follower. It reeks of servitude. I joined Facebook to make friends, not to become part of some digital durbar. It is very rare that I send a friend request, yet, when I do, I find myself converted into a “follower”. A faceless minion expected to hang on to every selfie, quote, and “motivational” post my new monarch uploads.

Now, I am told that a digital creator is someone who “produces and distributes original, engaging, and valuable content.” Beautiful words, but quite meaningless when you look around. What exactly are they creating? Ninety percent of what passes for “original content” today is a recycled meme, a borrowed quote, or a dance reel set to someone else’s song. If this is creativity, then the world’s WhatsApp groups are full of creative geniuses.

And please, don’t tell me there was no creativity before the digital age. By that logic, the likes of Shakespeare, Tagore, R.K. Laxman and Sahir – to name a few -- must have been mere amateurs because they never monetized their content through reels. What unmitigated nonsense!

What irritates me even more is how these digital creators hardly ever acknowledge others’ posts. They live in a world of one-way admiration. You comment on their post, and silence follows. The royal silence of someone too elevated to notice the commoners. Yet their “followers” dutifully shower likes and emojis as though attending a daily darshan.

To me, friendship is about equality. I don’t want to lead, and I certainly don’t want to follow. I want to connect. Genuinely, without hashtags or hierarchies.

If this obsession with followers continues, perhaps Mr. Zuckerberg should consider rebranding Facebook altogether. Maybe call it Followbook or Feudalbook. At least then we’ll know where we stand, kneeling at the feet of “digital creators,” proudly part of an utterly stupid algorithm.

Some might take offence to this post. That’s fine. After all, Facebook still asks me, “What’s on your mind?” I only hope it doesn’t soon change that to, “What’s on your leader’s mind?”

Aliens are human too. They're entitled to boredom!

Raju Korti
It all began when I stumbled upon this rather delightful theory by Dr Robin Corbet of NASA. He calls it radical mundanity, which, in plain language, means that aliens might be as ordinary as us, only with slightly shinier gadgets. For years, we have imagined them cruising around in shimmering spaceships, manipulating gravity and sipping quantum cocktails. But Corbet suggests they might be no more exciting than a cosmic neighbour who once bought a telescope, got tired of stargazing, and decided to stick to their version of afternoon tea.

Pic as imagined by me, Who ese?

The more I thought about it, the funnier it seemed. Imagine an alien research council somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy holding an emergency meeting: “Operation Contact Earth: Status?” And one sleepy alien saying, “We sent them a signal 3 million years ago. Still buffering.” At some point, even the most patient civilisation would give up and reach for a plate of samosas instead.

It turns out that sending messages across galaxies is not like sending a WhatsApp text. It takes colossal amounts of energy and time. Possibly millions of years just to get a ‘hello’ back. So, after a few cosmic centuries, our alien friends might have realised it was not worth the trouble. You can almost picture them sighing, “These humans can’t even agree on the taste of chai. Let’s move on.”Dr Corbet’s theory also punctures the grand myth of aliens being godlike. He suggests they might just have slightly better tech. An iPhone 42 instead of an iPhone 17. Which means, instead of building galaxy-sized marvels or bending space-time, they could be stuck dealing with their own version of power cuts, software crashes, and interplanetary traffic snarls.

In fact, this makes the universe feel oddly familiar. The Fermi Paradox, the question of why we haven’t heard from anyone yet, might just have the most human answer imaginable: they got bored. Picture the aliens tuning into Earth’s broadcasts, watching endless election debates on television, and deciding that advanced communication with us was a bad idea.

But on a serious note, there is something oddly comforting in this mundanity. If they are indeed out there, maybe they are not perfect, not terrifying, just as flawed and easily distracted as we are. Maybe their greatest invention wasn’t some interstellar engine but a better version of the pressure cooker.So yes, the universe might be full of intelligent life, but it could also be full of civilisations that simply lost interest halfway. In the end, perhaps we are all, humans and aliens alike, victims of the same cosmic condition: short attention spans and the irresistible lure of comfort over curiosity.

After all, even in the grand theatre of the cosmos, it seems boredom truly is universal.

When the monster turns: Pakistan’s Taliban dilemma and India’s calculus

Raju Korti
I have always believed that history punishes those who ignore its lessons. The events now playing out between Pakistan and the Taliban are a grim reminder of that truth. Creating a monster in the hope of controlling it is a strategy that never ends well. From a diplomatic and strategic standpoint, nurturing groups like the Taliban was a miscalculation of monumental proportions. And now, the fallout is at Pakistan’s doorstep.

What was once Islamabad’s prized proxy has evolved into its most formidable adversary. The recent breakdown of talks between Pakistan and the Taliban has set the stage for a dangerous confrontation. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), emboldened by ideological kinship and territorial sanctuary in Afghanistan, has declared open hostility toward its former patron. The hunter has indeed become the hunted.

Divided by barbs

The Taliban’s defiance of Pakistan’s pleas to rein in TTP is not mere brinkmanship. It signals a deeper shift in regional power equations. The Taliban, now in control of Kabul, no longer needs Pakistan’s patronage or protection. For the first time, it sees itself as an independent force. Perhaps even as the arbiter of South and Central Asian jihadist politics. That confidence, or arrogance, makes the situation far more volatile.

Pakistan’s military, long seen as the orchestrator of regional power plays, suddenly finds itself cornered. The optics of TTP fighters moving freely in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and mocking the Pakistani army are not only humiliating but also destabilizing. For Islamabad, this is no longer about containing insurgency. It is about surviving a rebellion it once armed and funded.

In this shifting dynamic, India inevitably enters the frame. Pakistan’s accusation that the Taliban is now acting as an “Indian puppet” borders on the absurd. India has maintained a consistent distance from the Taliban, both ideologically and diplomatically. No senior Taliban leader had set foot in India since the group recaptured Kabul on August 15, 2021; until now. The visit of acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi to New Delhi marks a cautious, calibrated engagement, not an embrace.

India’s position must remain clear-eyed. Any engagement with the Taliban must serve two purposes: safeguarding Indian interests in Afghanistan and ensuring that terror networks with cross-border ambitions find no sanctuary there. While dialogue is not endorsement, it does signal a pragmatic recognition of the new realities in the neighbourhood.

But caution must remain the watchword. The Taliban’s past record of duplicity, ideological rigidity, and support for extremism cannot be overlooked. Its promises of moderation have so far been largely rhetorical. India must balance outreach with vigilance, ensuring that any diplomatic engagement does not legitimize or embolden a regime still struggling to align with international norms.

For Pakistan, the crisis is existential. Its decades-long use of militant groups as instruments of state policy has finally imploded. The Taliban, now its nemesis, refuses to dance to Islamabad’s tune. The threat is not only military but also psychological. Pakistan’s strategic depth has turned into a strategic disaster.

As the dust settles on this dangerous confrontation, one thing is clear: Pakistan’s experiment with terror as foreign policy has collapsed under its own weight. The Taliban’s rise may have changed Afghanistan’s power map, but its newest battleground lies within Pakistan itself. For India, this is a moment to watch, not rush. In the great game of the subcontinent, patience, prudence, and preparedness will be the best weapons.

The paradox of Death: Routine, yet always exceptional!

Raju Korti
To me, death has always existed on two irreconcilable planes. One philosophical, the other painfully real. In thought, it overwhelms; in experience, it devastates. No amount of spiritual discourse can cushion the blunt force of absence. The unbearable knowledge that you will never again see that person in flesh and blood. The mind can debate eternity; the heart cannot bear finality.

Board at a crematorium

Yet, amid this emotional chaos, I find myself observing those who live and work in the orbit of death, people for whom it has become almost procedural. In hospitals, nurses and doctors steel themselves before breaking the news to a waiting family. Their faces, often expressionless, betray the fatigue of repetition. It is not callousness, but a necessary armour, a coping mechanism that allows them to serve without collapsing.

At crematoriums and burial grounds, attendants perform their duties with an economy of gesture that borders on ritual precision. They lift, place, and light pyres, their hands moving through smoke and ash as if through air. To them, the end of life is another beginning of a shift, a routine, a livelihood. I often wonder whether the smell of burning wood still stirs anything in them or whether familiarity has numbed them into quiet acceptance.

Even in government offices, death finds bureaucratic expression. A death certificate is printed, stamped, and filed away like any other document. The clerk behind the counter may not flinch at the name, but somewhere, that piece of paper marks the end of someone’s world.

My own tryst with loss, the untimely death of my 37-year-old nephew, tore open this contemplation. Grief, I discovered, is not a moment but a state of being. People say time heals; perhaps it only dulls. The death of someone close is a terminating pause. From where one does not move on, only around.

Science explains death as the irreversible cessation of vital functions. Philosophy frames it as transition, religion as liberation. Yet no definition has ever truly captured its essence. Death remains the one mystery no living being has ever returned to decode.

Perhaps those who deal with it daily are the closest we have to understanding it. Not through theory, but through endurance. Their detachment is not indifference, but wisdom earned through proximity. They remind us that while death may be universal, the way we meet it -- with grief, grace, or grim duty -- is profoundly human.

Death may be an illusion, as some say, but never illusive. We can study it, philosophize about it, even grow accustomed to it, yet never truly know it.

Ram Ram! Random Access, Random Memories: Becoming a late-in-life psychologist

Raju Korti
A few days back, I happened to read an article that has provided grist to my counselling mill. It was about how the brain “rescues” fragile memories and discards others. The study, published recently in Science Advances, explores how our memory system gives ordinary moments staying power when they are linked, before or after, to emotionally charged or rewarding experiences.

I am no cognitive psychologist or memory researcher, but I find this fascinating. My own vault of memories is cluttered not with grand moments but with stray, inconsequential ones. I can recall the pattern on a teacup from a forgotten afternoon or the exact sound of a ceiling fan from a childhood home, but not the details of a far more significant event. None of these recollections seem to fit neatly into the categories scientists describe. How does science explain such random retention? Perhaps even the brain does not always know why it keeps what it does.

Pic merely representational

The study argues that memory is not a passive recorder but an active decision-maker. It “rescues” fragile memories if they share a sensory or conceptual link with a meaningful event. My little research tells me that this phenomenon, called graded prioritization. means that the brain’s emotional circuitry can reach backward or forward in time to stabilise related experiences. For instance, an emotional high or shock can strengthen the memory of neutral moments that came just before or after it.In simpler terms, the brain saves stories, not snapshots. It chooses fragments that fit into a narrative it can later reconstruct. That to me explains why emotional significance, attention, and relevance to current goals weigh heavily in memory formation. The brain privileges what it finds useful for survival, learning, or identity building. Emotional events, especially those invoking stress or reward, activate the key regions that signal the brain to consolidate the experience into long-term storage.

Yet what intrigues me most is how arbitrary it still feels. Many of my most vivid memories have no emotional weight or logical purpose. They are sensory fragments. Smells, sounds, and fleeting visuals that seem detached from context. Maybe they once brushed against a meaningful experience, or maybe they were just efficiently encoded by chance. Science might call this selective capture, the brain’s way of economising energy by keeping only what fits its evolving model of the world. But that explanation feels, at best, partial.

This puzzle becomes even more interesting when we think about dreams. Some researchers believe that dreams are the brain’s nocturnal workshop, replaying and reorganising fragments of waking life to strengthen certain connections. Others suggest they are a by-product of random neural firing with no structured purpose. The boundary between dreams and memories often blurs. I have woken up unsure whether a vivid scene was a remembered event or a dream. Proof, perhaps, that both arise from the same creative, reconstructive process.

I understand that memory science is fundamentally an approximate science rather than a perfect one. It relies on observation, experimentation, and evolving theories to make sense of a fallible biological process. Even the most sophisticated brain imaging cannot fully decode how a fleeting sensory impression becomes an enduring recollection. Researchers are still uncovering how memories are encoded, stored, and retrieved, and how the emotional brain decides which ones to rescue and which to release into oblivion.

That uncertainty, in a way, makes the science even more beautiful. Memory, after all, is not about accuracy. It is about meaning. The fact that our minds sometimes cling to the trivial and discard the important may not be a flaw but a reflection of how deeply human, creative, and imperfect the process really is.

Inside the Solitude Zone: Are We Truly Alone in the Cosmos?

Raju Korti
Are we truly alone in the universe? It is a question that has stirred human imagination for centuries, and one that science keeps trying to answer with logic rather than longing. A new theory known as the “Solitude Zone” offers a startling possibility: that our civilisation may be the only one of its kind in existence right now.

The “Solitude Zone” is not a cosmic boundary or mysterious void, but a mathematical probability model suggesting that, under certain conditions, a single technologically advanced civilisation (ours) could exist at a time. Conceived to address the Fermi Paradox, which questions why no alien life has yet been detected, the Solitude Zone reframes the issue as one of statistical emergence rather than physical absence.

As I understand, one approach proposes that for a civilisation to emerge, three factors must align: the number of habitable planets, the complexity of the civilisation, and the likelihood of such complexity arising. When the probability of emergence is finely balanced, neither too rare nor too common, it creates a statistical window where one civilisation can exist in isolation. Humanity, by this model, could occupy that window.

The implications are profound. If correct, the Solitude Zone suggests our loneliness is not by design or cosmic neglect, but by probability. It paints intelligence as a fleeting, perhaps self-limiting phenomenon, appearing sparsely across the vast universe. This idea tempers the optimism of projects like SETI and challenges the assumption that advanced civilisations are waiting to be found.

For the uninitiated, SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. It is a collective term for scientific efforts to detect signals or signs of intelligent life beyond Earth. SETI researchers use large radio telescopes and other instruments to scan the skies for non-random, structured radio waves or laser pulses that could indicate communication from alien civilizations.

The idea behind SETI is that if intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe, they might use electromagnetic signals, just as humans do, to communicate across space.

However, the theory’s credibility remains limited by its reliance on assumptions. The variables such as how often complex life evolves or survives long enough to be noticed, are largely speculative. Without empirical evidence of other civilisations or clearer understanding of life’s distribution, the Solitude Zone remains a mathematical abstraction, not a definitive conclusion.

As for any connection to Comet Atlas 31’s recent erratic behaviour, there is none scientifically established. The comet’s trajectory changes and unexplained luminosity are natural astrophysical phenomena, not evidence of extraterrestrial design. The idea of alien involvement belongs more to imaginative conjecture than to credible science.

In essence, the Solitude Zone theory reframes our existential question. It neither proves nor disproves alien existence but suggests that cosmic silence may simply be the statistical norm. Whether that solitude is comforting or disquieting depends on how humanity chooses to see its singular place in the universe.

Crisis in PoK: Opportunity wrapped in risk for India

Raju Korti
As I watch events unfold across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), it is clear that Islamabad’s control over the region has begun to crack. The massive protests that forced Pakistan’s government to accept a sweeping 38-point charter mark more than just civil unrest. They signify the people’s accumulated anger against decades of exploitation, neglect and empty promises. For India, which has consistently claimed PoK as its own, these developments carry serious implications, both as a potential opening and as a test of restraint.

The Pakistani military establishment clearly appears rattled. In recent months, its tone has grown more defensive, almost panicky. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that Operation Sindoor was only “paused,” and the unequivocal comments by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi, have unnerved Islamabad. Pakistan’s predictable response has been to issue its routine threat of “cataclysmic” consequences, invoking its nuclear arsenal as it has done many times before.

This nervousness is not without reason. The growing domestic anger in PoK has coincided with India’s aggressive diplomacy and clear articulation of its rightful claim over the territory. Posters calling for merger with India have emerged during protests in towns like Muzaffarabad and Rawalakot. Rajnath Singh’s remark that India may not even need to use military means to reclaim PoK carries symbolic weight. It suggests that Pakistan’s own citizens in the occupied territory may become the agents of change.

For Islamabad, the timing could not have been worse. The Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 Indian tourists, was followed by India’s stern warnings and heightened military readiness. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s ruling elite seemed to misread the situation, buoyed by false perceptions of global support. US President Donald Trump cosying up to Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir, though transactional, has led Pakistan to believe it has regained international relevance. The defence pact with Saudi Arabia added to that illusion. Yet beneath this veneer of confidence, Pakistan’s internal rot has become visible, and the PoK protests have laid it bare.

The character of the agitation is worth noting. It is not externally instigated but locally driven. What began as anger over inflated power tariffs, food shortages and bureaucratic privileges has evolved into a full-blown civic movement demanding transparency, local rights and resource justice. The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee has become the voice of this movement. The fact that Islamabad had to capitulate to most of its demands underscores how brittle its hold on PoK has become.

For India, this moment must be handled with both sensitivity and foresight. It is tempting to view Pakistan’s crisis as an opening for bold action, but prudence is key. India’s best move lies not in military adventurism but in narrative precision and diplomatic assertiveness. The unrest offers a powerful counterpoint to Pakistan’s long-standing rhetoric about human rights in Kashmir. India can use this to expose the hypocrisy of Islamabad’s position, preaching self-determination while denying the same to those living under its administration.

New Delhi should take this opportunity to amplify the issue in multilateral forums, highlighting the denial of rights and economic exploitation in PoK. By maintaining diplomatic pressure and moral high ground, India can reinforce its legitimacy without crossing lines that might trigger reckless responses from Pakistan. It is equally important not to mistake turbulence for collapse. Pakistan’s security apparatus remains formidable, and its leadership could easily resort to diversionary tactics, including cross-border provocations, to unify a restless population.

That said, India must not let the moment slip away. The people of PoK have begun to see the stark difference between their stagnation and the visible development across Jammu and Kashmir after Article 370’s abrogation. Their demands for accountability and equitable resource distribution are, in essence, demands for dignity. India can quietly acknowledge and morally support these aspirations without overt interference.

If India plays this phase with composure and strategy, it can strengthen its position both diplomatically and ideologically. The unrest in PoK underscores that Pakistan’s narrative on Kashmir is collapsing under its own contradictions. For India, this is not just a vindication of its long-held stand but a reminder that patience, not provocation, will yield the greater reward.

The winds of change in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir may not yet be a storm, but they are unmistakable. India must watch closely, act wisely and prepare for a future where the people across that line may one day decide their own destiny, and perhaps, align it with India’s. 

A chat with Tony Greig: Chronicling the man who made Cricket talk back!

Raju Korti
My first glimpse of Anthony William Greig, better recognised by cricket buffs the world over as Tony Greig, dates back to 1972-73 when I was among the countless school-going boys hysterical about the game. The Englishmen were led by another Tony, Lewis, who looked more like a Hollywood star and became an instant hit with the Indian media for his impeccable manners. On that tour of India, however, the scene stealer was Greig with his six feet seven-inch frame and infectious energy. That was not his only claim to fame. Greig, with his aggression and crowd-friendly antics, was lustily cheered wherever the teams played. My most abiding memory of that tour is of Greig protecting the boundary and catching oranges thrown at him by exuberant spectators with the same practiced ease as he caught cricket balls.

Tony Greig (Wikipedia grab)

Greig was a revelation on that tour with his all-round performance. As a batsman, he would stride out boldly to the Indian spinners and hit them into the stands. As a bowler capable of bowling gentle medium pace and cutters, he could extract awkward bounce even from the placid Indian pitches. Greig had both height and stature, if you know what I mean. Thanks to Wisden Almanack and Sports and Pastime, which carried articles by the likes of Neville Cardus, Jim Swanton, Jack Fingleton, and Richie Benaud, we youngsters were very well informed. We knew how Greig, who could never have played international cricket because of the Gleneagles Treaty, was pitchforked into the English team due to his Scottish parentage. The Treaty barred South Africa and its players from international cricket because of apartheid, and had it not been for his ancestry, Greig would have been condemned to play alongside greats like Ali Bacher, the Pollock brothers, Eddie Barlow, and Mike Procter in domestic cricket, since the Pretoria regime remained adamant on its racial policies.

In a way, Sunil Gavaskar, who strode like a colossus on the cricketing firmament during the historic 1971 Caribbean tour, was partly responsible for introducing us to those South African giants. Garry Sobers, whom I consider the game’s greatest of all time, picked Gavaskar for the Australia versus Rest of the World series, and that team included several South Africans whose names were already legends to us.A couple of years later, Greig’s antecedents came in handy for media tycoon Kerry Packer, who used him to recruit the best of West Indian, Australian, Pakistani, and South African talent for the World Series of Cricket, derisively dubbed the “Packer Circus.” It turned out to be just that in letter and spirit. All the cricketers were banned by their national boards for their “betrayal.” For all the interest and hoopla generated by the Packer Series, the matches were largely low scoring and became little more than statistics in record books. The point, however, is that Greig’s leadership qualities had surfaced even before he was formally inducted into the MCC’s Test eleven. His role in that colourful venture later cost him England’s captaincy, which he had inherited from Mike Denness, and exposed him to criticism and bitterness.

During the home summer of 1974, England faced three Tests each against India and Pakistan. Greig averaged 42 with the bat and took 14 wickets, his hundred against India at Lord’s being the highlight. It was good preparation for the Ashes tour of Australia, where the Englishmen, uncharitably called “Poms”, were the favourites. As it turned out, they were made to hop, skip, and jump by the blistering pace of Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson. While most of his teammates were clueless about what had hit them, Greig stood tall with a gritty 110. He was a standout character in a losing team and won the admiration of the “hard-playing” Aussies who respected his approach to the game.

When Greig toured India again in 1976-77 as captain, he justified the mantle by winning a series in the subcontinent against the best spinning attack in the world. I was then a college-going youngster who realised how thoroughly he had done his homework. I remember watching the tall Greig holding his bat almost chest-high against pacers and then adjusting his stance quickly to bring the bat down against the Indian spinners.

By 1987, the equations had changed. I was now a journalist with The Hindu, and Greig had taken on a new role as writer and commentator. In the Press Box, I was fortunate to be seated between Greig and another commentator I deeply admired, Trevor Bailey. I was working on an in-depth feature on Bailey. Greig, who overheard our conversation, tapped me on the back and said warmly, “That was wonderful, mate.” That little boost led to an interview with him at his hotel. He was amused to know that he had once caught an orange I had thrown at him during the 1972-73 series.

By then, I knew how brutally blunt he could be. His ebullient oratory had created quite a flutter when he commented that the West Indian players wilted under pressure. He said, “I like to think that people are building these West Indians up because I am not really sure they are as good as everyone else thinks they are. People are forgetting they were beaten 5-1 by the Aussies and barely survived against the Indians. Sure, they have a couple of fast bowlers, but I do not think we will run into anything faster than Lillee and Thomson. The West Indians are magnificent when they are on top. But if they are down, they grovel, and I intend to make them grovel.

”There was a furore as expected. The word “grovel” carried sinister connotations for the West Indians, many of whom had slave ancestry. At a time when apartheid and the Gleneagles Agreement were live issues, a white South African using the word “grovel” was bound to be explosive. Stung to the quick, the West Indian bowlers took special delight in targeting Greig, and he became their prized wicket. True to his nature, he expressed no remorse.

By then, Greig had made a smooth transition to the commentary box. As a commentator, he was expressive, animated, and sometimes theatrical. You could visualise his intense face and the excitement of the game through his words. He probably knew, and perhaps even revelled in, his enduring popularity in India whenever he commentated in matches involving the Indian team.

Partly because he had seen me chatting at length with the likes of Bailey, Henry Blofeld, and Peter Roebuck (who would later take his own life), Greig spoke with complete candour when I interviewed him. “I still think of the West Indians in the same breath,” he told me. I did not mince words either. “As a commentator, your bias often showed. You spoke as fluently as the BBC greats like Brian Johnston, Don Moseley, Jenkins, and Blofeld, but you sometimes overplayed your hand. Was it exuberance or design?” I asked. “Oh, they are all seasoned veterans and peerless,” he said with a smile, “but I am what I have to be.

”That same flourish often coloured his commentary, whether he was describing the cricket or the jewellery worn by ladies in the stands. His narration could swing from extreme to extreme, sometimes carried away by his own passion, never overly concerned about the fallout. Yet, whether one liked him or not, he remained in a league of his own.

In that conversation, Greig spoke freely. Sometimes criticising Indians, sometimes admiring them unabashedly. He was always candid, never cautious. When he later spoke matter-of-factly about his lung cancer and its inevitability, there was no trace of self-pity. Compare that with our own Yuvraj Singh, whose bout with cancer was endlessly revisited by the media and public.

In his last lecture at the Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey, Greig said, “I have never had any doubt I did the right thing by my family and by cricket.”

He truly epitomised that.

When retirement becomes a rehearsal for freedom with no quests!

Raju Korti
I have worked for donkey’s years in a profession that offered little by way of gratitude, much by way of unpredictability, and almost nothing by way of respite. The hours were odd, the demands incessant. Life was one long haul of fulfilling expectations, both spoken and unspoken, from people who rarely paused to ask: how are you doing?

In my salad days, I looked at retirement as a faraway mirage. A land meant for the weary, the spent, the purposeless. Not for me. I was so consumed by motion and meaning that I genuinely wondered what kind of soul would voluntarily hang up their boots. Of course, like many others, I too grappled with the unsettling question, Would I be able to sustain myself financially? But that anxiety soon faded when I turned to the larger ethos that had always guided my choices.

Age has its own silent curriculum. It doesn’t scream lessons into your ears, it whispers them. Softly, steadily, until the truth seeps in like light through curtains left ajar. And now I know: perhaps those who retired before me had simply walked the same spiral of realisation. You don’t suddenly become tired. You simply begin to know. In your bones. That it is time.

There comes a time when you realise you have nothing left to prove. Certainly not to those perennial auditors of your life. The naysayers, the disappointed, the hypercritical, the ones who sniff out flaws like bloodhounds. For years, I played host to their expectations. I stood by them: in their thick, in their thin, in their mess. I offered trust like one offers water to the thirsty. And like most such offerings, it was taken for granted. Sometimes spilled, sometimes thrown back.

But something shifted. Rancour, that old rusted emotion, eventually wore out. And in its place, I discovered a calm relief. I do not miss those who walked away. I do not mourn those who failed me. In fact, I silently thank the invisible hand of nature for taking out the emotional trash. Good riddance is not an act of bitterness. It is ecology. A defence mechanism that helps you survive with grace.

So here I am, looking at retirement not with dread, but with curiosity. Perhaps even glee. I turned 70 on August 31 last. A milestone, not of age, but of arrival. I looked forward to announcing, not with fanfare but with quiet satisfaction. The over-riding thought was: I am done. The race is run. The boots, finally, are hung.

Idleness does not scare me. I have walked enough to now enjoy sitting still. The mind, thankfully, has not retired. It reads, it writes, it stirs a pot of curry every now and then. These small acts of creation are what keep me gently tethered to the world.

I have no doubt that solitude will embrace me like an old friend. Not the cloying loneliness people dread. This is something more elegant. It is space, it is silence, it is sovereignty. I do not count regrets anymore. I do not run a ledger of things left undone. I live simply, perhaps invisibly. And that, to me, is liberation. Almost like nirvana where even your own identity becomes irrelevant.

Retirement, I have observed, is often viewed through a lens of reinvention. The bucket lists, the travel plans, the long-postponed passions. Others see it as a void to be filled. But I feel neither. I seek not activity, nor reinvention, nor reflection. I seek simply being. A slow, intentional existence with no badges to wear, no scores to settle, no self to sculpt.

There is life after retirement. Mine will be modest. No pension, no windfall. Just a gentle clamour within that says: Go get a life. And that is what I intend to do.

In retreating, I will not disappear. I will arrive. Into myself.

Dev Anand and the untold story of his misplaced picture!

Raju Korti
There are stars, there are legends. And then there is Dev Anand. Even in a city overpopulated with charm and charisma, Dev Anand stood apart. You couldn’t quite put a finger on what made him the cynosure of all eyes, but when he entered a room, the atmosphere changed perceptibly. The air thickened with awe and admiration. My most unforgettable experience of this phenomenon was in 1982 during the premiere of Swami Dada. The cast included rising stars like Mithun Chakraborty, Jackie Shroff, Padmini Kolhapure, and Rati Agnihotri. Yet they stood almost forgotten in a quiet corner, swallowed by the magnetic presence of (then) 59-year-old Dev Anand. Angular swagger intact, toothy smile firmly in place, his screen persona had simply spilled into real life. You saw the flesh-and-blood silhouette of a man who had eluded the clutches of age and irrelevance.

Over the years, I met him several times. At events in 2003 and 2007, and many more informally at Navketan Studios over his favourite snack sukhi bhelpuri. I normally steered clear of glittery events, wary of filmy noise and flashbulbs. But with Dev Anand around, all scepticism dissolved. I saw something remarkable: even when surrounded by stars like Hema Malini, Salman Khan, Girish Karnad or Boman Irani, the gravitational pull was always towards him. It wasn’t about seniority or legacy. It was something deeper, subtler. An aura that made even the accomplished appear as part of the crowd. As Asha Parekh once narrated to me, during the shooting of Jab Pyar Kisise Hota Hai, fans swarmed the sets only for Dev Anand. And after hours of shooting, he would patiently sign autographs, never once losing his temper or his radiant energy.

However, as claimed by producer-director Raj Khosla in his autobiography, that same overpowering charisma didn’t always sit well with co-stars. During the shooting of Bombai Ka Babu, Suchitra Sen, already a reigning superstar in Bengal, would sit sulking when crowds in Kullu gravitated entirely towards Dev Anand. She wasn’t used to playing second fiddle in public affection. Things came to a head when a wrap-up party celebrating Dev Anand’s shoot disturbed her and her husband’s rest. The resulting friction nearly derailed the schedule, until she returned to the set with a pointed quip, “You think she (the body double) can act better than me?”

There was also the warmth. Dev Anand never played the aloof matinee idol. He remembered names. He connected. Picked calls himself, never left it to his secretary. He exuded the kind of friendliness that made each person feel uniquely seen. He had no need to attract attention. It came to him effortlessly, like iron filings to a magnet. He didn’t have to retreat behind walls; he remained accessible, almost humbly so.

Many people realised pretty late that Dev Anand could be easily approached. In person, even over a call. That human accessibility, combined with his surreal stardom, was the enigma. His charm wasn’t just in the way he looked, but in the way he spoke. Distinct, stylised, with that peculiar cadence of words that drew you into his world. Everyone who met him felt as though they had glimpsed something intimate, something enduring. And perhaps, that only they had been privileged to be its privy.

Through it all, he remained ever-youthful. Dev Anand refused to be defined by time. He once told me, half-jokingly, that he was life itself. And in some way, I believed him. He would smile at me and say, “Ah, Raju Guide!”, a nod to Guide, his masterpiece. There couldn’t have been a more perfect metaphor for PR and communication. He was his own brand, his own campaign, his own message. No birthday tribute or memorial event can truly capture Dev Anand’s essence. Because legends like him don’t die. They simply move offscreen, letting the reels of memory play on.

Epilogue
There is an interesting piece of history behind the picture that I actually wanted to use with this blog. I thought it deserves a honourable mention, at least as a sidelight. My father had bought an Agfa-Gevaert camera from Rangoon way back in 1950 which lay unused for years in his almirah. I was (and am) no photographer, nor had the instincts for it. Yet, on an impulse, I decided to check out if the camera worked; and took it along for this event. Our official photographer (the late) Ashok Sawane looked at it curiously, chewed his pan, spat viciously before saying, “chal jayega shayad” (it might just work). It did and I clicked a picture with Dev Anand standing and making a point. DA autographed the back side of the printed invitation for the event; which I got affixed below the picture. Yesterday, I spent hours searching for the picture which now seems misplaced from my burgeoning memorabilia. Discarding all other picture of him with me, I finally decided to make do with this picture which Ashok had clicked; for sheer topicality!
Photo photo pe likha hota hai kheechne waale ka naam!

My encounter with Henry Blofeld: A voice, a presence, a memory

Raju Korti
My first encounter with Henry Blofeld came during the Reliance World Cup of 1987. And it left me, well, a little startled. On hindsight, it reminds me of that theme from Satyam Shivam Sundaram, where a voice beguiles you into imagining a visage that doesn’t quite match reality. Having heard Blofeld's voice, rich, full-bodied, and impossibly British, I had expected a tall, dapper man, the kind who might have walked off the lawns of Lord’s in a cravat. What I got instead was a balding, slightly portly gentleman whose wavy locks fluttered in the breeze. But what a voice! It shook your hand long before he did. “Hello Raju,” he said as I introduced myself, his tone a perfect mix of polish and warmth -- practiced, perhaps, but never impersonal.

Unlike Trevor Bailey’s more studied detachment or Peter Roebuck’s analytical flair, Blofeld was instinctively affable. We spoke on and off around the match, and he seemed genuinely pleased, even mildly amused, that BBC’s Test Match Special had a loyal Indian following. I remember asking if it was an unwritten rule that TMS commentators had to christen each other with nicknames. Boiley for Bailey, Johnners for Brian Johnston. Blofeld burst out laughing. “I know what you're hinting at,” he said, eyes twinkling. “Johnners called me ‘Blowers’ and there was no escaping it.” His delight in recounting that was almost childlike, and I understood in that moment what made him so beloved.

Blofeld’s cricket commentary was a tapestry. Not just of overs and wickets, but of pigeons on the outfield, construction cranes on the skyline, a lady in a pink sari in the upper tier, or an airplane buzzing overhead. Purists often scoffed at these ‘digressions,’ but to me, they were the seasoning in the cricketing stew. I told him that, and he seemed pleased. That voice, seasoned by years of TMS duty since the 1970s, had a cadence that could make even a dull draw feel like a Shakespearean drama. I still remember, vividly, when Srikkanth flicked Danny Morrison to fine leg and Blofeld turned to me and exclaimed, “That was a marvellous shot!” I didn’t care about the analysis that followed. I just wanted that voice to linger in my ears a little longer.

There were others I wished I had spoken to. Christopher Martin-Jenkins for one, though I treasure the copy of his autobiography CMJ – A Cricketing Life, gifted to me by my friend Dr Rashmin Tamhane. Alan Wilkins, to my good fortune, did not escape. We had a lovely chat and he even signed his book Easier Said Than Done. But with Blowers, it was different. It was less about the man and more about the aura, the theatricality, the self-effacing humour, the occasional bumbling charm. He once famously went on talking after the commentary had gone off-air, unaware, while Johnston couldn’t stop laughing. And then there was that ever-cherished catchphrase: “Oh my dear old thing”. It had a way of wrapping around you like a warm scarf on a chilly London evening.

Blofeld has since stepped out of the commentary box, his farewell marked by a thunderous ovation during an England–West Indies match. I am sure he met it with that same whimsical sign-off: “Oh my dear old thing…” Yes, I never did get my hands on his memoirs Squeezing the Orange or Over and Out, but I suspect I don’t need them. Because for me, the memory of that singular voice, and that unexpectedly delightful man behind it, remains far more eloquent than any book could be.

We talk the weather but forget the climate!

Raju Korti
Climate change is perhaps the least of human concerns for many, overshadowed by immediate crises like economic instability, political turmoil, and public health challenges. Yet, as the deadline for updated climate action plans draws near, the urgency of the environmental crisis becomes impossible to ignore. The upcoming UN Climate Summit in New York, with over 100 countries, including 40 heads of state, set to attend, will focus on turning the promises made under the Paris Agreement into tangible actions. This summit is a crucial moment for nations to demonstrate whether their climate goals are more than just political rhetoric and whether they can shift from abstract pledges to real, impactful measures for the planet's future.

From green to charcoal black!

However, the road ahead is fraught with challenges. I understand that as of mid-September, only 36 countries have officially submitted their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs), falling far short of expectations. The Paris Agreement, signed by 196 nations in 2015, set the ambitious goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This agreement did provide a roadmap for global climate action, but then, its success would depend on nations' ability to not only set targets but also execute them. The extension of the deadline for submitting NDCs until the end of September has offered more time, but the window for meaningful action is closing rapidly.

One of the most significant areas of concern is the implementation gap. The world has witnessed some progress. India, for instance, exceeded its initial target of sourcing 50 percent of its installed power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources. Yet, despite such victories, experts warn that current efforts are insufficient to meet the 1.5-degree target. The climate crisis is worsening, and if we remain on our current trajectory, the world is heading toward a 3-degree rise in temperature by the end of the century. As I had borne in one of my blogs months ago, this trajectory could lead to widespread climate disruptions, from intensified heatwaves to devastating floods and droughts, threatening ecosystems, economies, and livelihoods.

The role of India in this context is critical. As one of the world's fastest-growing economies and a major emitter, India's actions will have a significant impact on the global climate trajectory. While it has made strides in clean energy and emissions reductions, much remains to be done. The country’s leadership, alongside other major emitters like China and the European Union, will be key to bridging the ambition-implementation gap. The upcoming UN Climate Summit is expected to showcase the plans of these nations, and the world will be watching closely. Will they step up with the bold, transformative actions required, or will the rhetoric fall short once again?

Looking ahead, the future remains uncertain. The commitments made at COP28, such as tripling renewable energy capacity, halting deforestation, and doubling energy efficiency, are ambitious, but they require not only political will but also substantial investment in green technologies and infrastructure. The next decade will be a test of multilateral cooperation and the ability of nations to make hard choices in the face of a rapidly warming planet. The success of the Paris Agreement hinges on the strength of these upcoming commitments and their translation into concrete policies.

At this critical juncture, the question is no longer whether the world can afford to act; it is whether we can afford not to. The stakes have never been higher. The window for meaningful climate action is narrowing, and the decisions made in the coming months will determine the future of the planet. Whether those decisions lead to a sustainable, resilient world or a future defined by environmental collapse remains to be seen.

Immortality’s illusion: When longer life may not mean living!

Raju Korti
Almost every day, I read with morbid curiosity (!) the internet awash with dazzling headlines about scientists creating artificial hearts that could beat forever, stem cell therapies promising to wipe out diabetes, and organs that might one day resist all forms of damage. Read together, these advances carry an intoxicating suggestion: that humanity is inching towards immortality. But if you pause and think, the prospect is as troubling as it is exciting.

It is fine to wish that someone lives 100 years (literally) or 1000 years (figuratively). But I seriously wonder if anyone would really want to live beyond 150 years, walking on an earth that continues to age, fracture, and recycle its sorrows, while you remain unnaturally preserved. The body may not crumble, but the world around you surely will. Political strife, climate scars, and unchanging human mindsets would still persist. In fact, the longer you live, the more weather-beaten and time-scarred you might feel. Longevity could deepen disillusionment rather than erase it.

(Pic representational)

Human immortality still belongs more to theory than reality. Yet advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology suggest lifespans could increase dramatically. Some scientists insist there is a natural ceiling to human life. Others believe that merging artificial intelligence with biology could help us defeat aging itself. In truth, much of the current focus is less on endless life and more on extending health, repairing the body, and delaying decline.

I recently stumbled upon research that seeks to remind us that biology has its own ceiling. Even with perfect health, resilience steadily erodes. Young bodies bounce back completely from illness or injury. Older bodies only reclaim part of their former vitality, and this erosion continues until a tipping point is reached. Studies suggest that the upper limit of recovery lies somewhere between 120 and 150 years. That figure is not merely a statistical curiosity. It is a reminder that the end of life is coded into our very biology.

And yet, even if science breaks this ceiling, can it solve the crises of meaning that come with existence itself? Existential angst may only sharpen in a world where you cannot escape time’s sameness. Would endless days make us more purposeful, or merely more restless? It is worth recalling the timeless dialogue from the film Anand: “Babumoshai, life should be big, not long.” The wisdom lies not in stretching years but in deepening experience.

There is also a beauty in life’s ironies, in its oscillation between joy and grief. As one song reminds us:
न मिलता ग़म तो बर्बादी के अफ़्साने कहाँ जाते
अगर दुनिया चमन होती तो वीराने कहाँ जाते
चलो अच्छा हुआ अपनों में कोई ग़ैर तो निकला
अगर होते सभी अपने तो बेगाने कहाँ जाते.
(If sorrow did not exist, the tales of ruin would not be told.
If the world were only a garden, where would the deserts go?
It is perhaps good that among loved ones a stranger appears,
If everyone were one’s own, where would the outsiders go?).
Another lyric lingers in memory:
ज़िन्दा रहने के मौसम बहुत हैं मगर
जान देने की रुत रोज़ आती नहीं
(There are many seasons for staying alive,
But the season for surrender does not come every day.)

Immortality, stripped of these contrasts, risks becoming unbearably monotonous. For without endings, beginnings lose their magic. Without fragility, strength has no meaning. Without death, life loses its urgency.

In chasing immortality, humanity may achieve a technical triumph but suffers a philosophical defeat. For it is not the length of our years that matters but the depth with which we inhabit them. Perhaps true immortality lies not in endless time, but in living moments so intensely that they defy time altogether.

India's task cut out: Balancing power, trade and uncertainty!

Raju Korti
There are times in international relations when strategy ceases to be a matter of choice and becomes a matter of necessity. The current phase is one such moment for India. I watch closely as New Delhi attempts to manage a delicate balance in a world unsettled by post Trump tariffs and the subsequent reconfiguration of economic ties. For India, the question is not whether to take sides but how to secure its own space in a global order where alignments can change overnight.

The first challenge arises from its proximity to China, both geographically and now economically, as tariffs push old allies to rethink their equations. India has shown a pragmatic willingness to engage with China even while recognising the deep mistrust that underlies the relationship. This pragmatism is not born out of affection but out of expediency, for it is evident that isolating China is neither possible nor desirable in the present context. The paradox is that even as India cooperates with Beijing on certain economic fronts, it must remain alert to the strategic risks posed by the same neighbour.

Equally complex is the question of energy security. India’s purchase of Russian oil at discounted rates is one such calculated risk. It gives the country breathing space against rising global energy prices but it also places it in the line of fire of Western criticism. I perceive that national interests cannot be dictated by other powers, and this seems to sum up New Delhi’s stance today. Energy independence and price stability are more than economic calculations. They are survival strategies.

The unpredictability of Donald Trump adds another layer of uncertainty. His tariffs have unsettled global trade flows and his mercurial style leaves little room for confident predictions. One day he could be pressing harder on India, and another day he could be wooing it back with softened terms. India knows this and therefore refuses to build strategy around assumptions of permanence. It is choosing instead to offset steep tariffs by diversifying markets, expanding manufacturing capacities and striking new trade partnerships. This is a demonstration that resilience can be cultivated even when the global economic environment is hostile.

The effect of these manoeuvres extends beyond the major powers. The European Union finds itself squeezed between American protectionism and Asian assertiveness, forced to recalibrate its own trade strategy. Pakistan, always keen to fish in troubled waters, sees opportunities in the shifting alignments but remains too constrained economically and diplomatically to play more than a fringe role. Other smaller economies will also feel the ripple effects of tariff wars and shifting oil flows, but their strategies will depend largely on how the bigger players act.

Will this situation last for long? History shows that economic wars are rarely sustainable in the long run. It is possible that Trump, in his own unpredictable way, may eventually come to terms with the fact that softening his stand can win more than confrontation. Whether or not he does, India’s present course suggests it will not wait passively for a change of heart in Washington. It is steadily equipping itself to bear the weight of global uncertainty by ensuring that its vulnerabilities are reduced and its strategic options remain open.

The future scenario is therefore likely to be one of continued balancing. India will neither fully align with one bloc nor isolate itself. It will engage with China where required, secure its energy through Russian supplies, keep its dialogue with the United States alive and seek new markets elsewhere. This will not be an easy journey. It will demand nimbleness, foresight and above all the ability to live with contradictions. Yet if India manages this balancing act with clarity, it could emerge not just as a survivor but as a shaper of the global order in the years ahead.

Axis, angles and shifting sands; global ties on a rollercoaster!

Raju Korti
I wake up each day to a map that has shifted overnight. The English weather looks steady by comparison. Alliances bend. Old enmities soften for a moment and then harden again. The last year has been a masterclass in churn. The result is a global order that is more fluid and more brittle at the same time.

Start with Washington. Donald Trump is back in the White House. That one fact alone resets many dials at once. His second term has already brought sharp rhetoric at home and a punchy posture abroad. He has weighed in on China and Russia with the usual mix of praise, warning and provocation. Only yesterday he said he was disappointed with Vladimir Putin even as he played down the China Russia embrace. The signal is mixed by design. It keeps friends guessing and rivals off balance.

Moscow is still at war. Ukraine bleeds. The front ebbs and flows. Drones, missiles and artillery define the rhythm of days. Russia probes for advantage while Kyiv absorbs pressure and strikes back. Today’s battlefield reads like yesterday’s and yet the numbers keep climbing. Independent trackers and daily situation reports show a grind with occasional bursts of movement and a steady rain of long-range hits. That grind shapes energy flows, defence budgets and public patience far from the trenches.

Now layer in Beijing. China hosts pageantry and partners. It courts Moscow on energy and technology while managing an economy weighed down by property woes.

Evergrande’s long unwind tells its own story. Creditors wait. Confidence wobbles. The state smooths edges but does not erase losses. Markets read that as caution from the top and fragility below. The geopolitical message is simple. China projects calm power even as it paddles hard under the water. Then the triangle of Washington, Moscow and Beijing meets the arc from New Delhi to Islamabad. India plays long game realpolitik. It deepens technology and defence ties with the United States. It keeps its energy lifeline with Russia alive on price and volume. It competes and cooperates with China depending on the file. That balancing act has grown harder in recent weeks. Think sanctions overhangs. Think trade frictions. Think a sharper American tone when India hunts for cheap barrels. The logic in Delhi is clear. Strategic autonomy is not a slogan. It is a daily spreadsheet.

Pakistan tries to steady itself under Shehbaz Sharif. The coalition is broad. The economy is tight. Security threats chew bandwidth. Islamabad looks to Beijing for projects and to Washington for trade relief where it can get it. Every move is constrained by politics at home and debt math on the table. The room for manoeuvre is narrow but not closed. Across the wider chessboard, clubs and coalitions keep morphing. NATO grew when Sweden joined in March 2024. That was a clear line drawn after Russia’s invasion. On the other side, BRICS added new members and even new partners. Indonesia’s entry this year, after last year’s wave from West Asia and Africa, gave fresh weight to talk of a multipolar world. Labels aside, the hard test is delivery. Can alternative blocks clear payments, insure cargoes and settle disputes at speed. That is where theory meets practice.

Leaders add their own theatre. Trump and Putin have traded compliments and criticism in equal measure. The tone changes by the week and sometimes by the hour. Trump salutes Xi one day and needles him the next. Media and experts feast on each swing. Op-eds frame it as strategy. Others call it improvisation. Think tanks urge pressure on Moscow. They also warn against treating every rival camp as a single monolith. I read them all and then return to the scoreboard of actions and outcomes.

What does all this churn mean in practice. Three things stand out.

First, deterrence now travels with discounts. Energy, chips and critical minerals sit at the heart of diplomacy. Russia offers deeper crude discounts to keep India in the buyer’s queue as sanctions bite. China courts commodity security and export control relief through side deals and summit optics. The price at which a barrel moves says as much about the war as any communiqué.

Second, alignments are broad but not deep. The China Russia North Korea embrace has grown tighter on paper with new treaties and talk of mutual help. Yet even there, caveats abound. Analysts note the limits of trust and capacity. Reports point to North Korean personnel heading to Russia in support roles, not front-line combat, which is telling. It shows Moscow needs manpower elasticity, while Pyongyang seeks relevance and aid. It is alignment by necessity, not destiny.

Third, middle powers act like system managers. India hedges across capitals. The Gulf states arbitrage energy and logistics. Turkey brokers talks when it suits. Southeast Asia adds BRICS heft while keeping the United States close. This is not fence sitting. It is risk management in a world of sudden gusts.Experts and media have had a field day. Some frame the moment as the rise of a new axis. Others insist it is a messy marketplace of deals. Brookings calls this a challenging moment for India United States ties with many frictions breaking at once. Atlantic Council voices push the White House to bear down harder on Putin. The split in prescriptions is the point. It reflects a global order with too many moving parts for one neat narrative.

Where do I land. I see a world that rewards speed and punishes rigidity. Trump’s Washington runs hot and cold by design. Putin’s Moscow seeks relief and time. Xi’s Beijing wants stability at home and leverage abroad. Modi’s New Delhi wants freedom of choice at scale. Ukraine fights for survival and sovereignty. Pakistan searches for oxygen. Markets mark every tremor in oil, freight and metals. Culture and society absorb the shocks through inflation, migration and a new edge in public discourse.

Now you know why I have kept my short. Almost like in a school-boyish essay. The map will move again tomorrow. Maybe by this evening. My only safe bet is that the political mercury will keep misbehaving. And that we will all keep learning to read it faster.

Playing ball at SCO: India, China and Russia!

Raju Korti
By all available indications, a new power axis is quietly taking shape in the East. The just concluded SCO Summit in Tianjin suggested as much, as India, China and Russia appeared to move in closer concert at a time when the United States finds its own tariff regime questioned in its courts and its global influence increasingly challenged. What emerged was not routine diplomacy but the outline of a counterweight to Western dominance, with images of bonhomie among Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin carrying echoes of a world order in transition.

Modi, Putin & Xi

As images of Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin exchanging warmth and laughter made global headlines, what resonated louder was the symbolism. The three leaders, representing vast civilisational legacies and commanding significant economic and military weight, looked less like rivals jostling for space and more like a compact capable of shaping an alternative order. The parallel with the BRICS moment of 2018 was hard to miss, only this time the undertone was far stronger.

Xi Jinping in his address targeted what he called bullying behaviour in the world order, a clear reference to Washington. He called for fairness, justice and an end to Cold War mentalities. By unveiling ambitions for a new security architecture, Xi positioned the SCO not merely as a regional bloc but as a counterweight to Western frameworks like NATO. Putin, whose ties with both Beijing and New Delhi remain critical, lent gravitas to the proceedings. And Modi, by his measured articulation of trust, dignity and sensitivity in relations with both Russia and China, ensured India did not appear a reluctant participant but an equal partner in this evolving geometry.

India’s presence at the SCO was not without context. Its ties with the United States have entered turbulent waters after Washington imposed steep tariffs on Indian exports and targeted its oil trade with Russia. Trump’s repeated attempts at taking credit for brokering India Pakistan peace only aggravated New Delhi’s perception of American condescension. When Washington demanded alignment with its energy policies, India chose instead to stand its ground. It is in this backdrop that the optics of Modi walking shoulder to shoulder with Putin and Xi acquired deeper significance.

For India, the SCO summit was also an opportunity to recalibrate ties with China after the bitterness of Galwan. Modi’s first visit to China in seven years saw a significant bilateral with Xi, where both leaders spoke of moving ahead on the basis of mutual trust and respect. This was not an easy conversation, but it showed intent to move beyond confrontation. The irony is not lost that while Washington’s pressures have pushed India closer to Moscow and Beijing, India has simultaneously retained its sovereign agency by not conceding to either side.

The SCO itself is not a perfect bloc. It carries the burden of internal contradictions, not least the presence of Pakistan, which in 2020 had provoked India by displaying an offensive map during a virtual meeting. That led to Ajit Doval’s walkout, a reminder that India is prepared to draw red lines even within multilateral frameworks. Pakistan again found itself marginalised in Tianjin, with its Prime Minister left on the fringes while the real centre of gravity rested with Modi, Xi and Putin.

Beyond theatrics, the summit revealed three layers of importance. One, the consolidation of an Eastern narrative challenging the West’s monopoly over security and trade frameworks. Two, the emergence of SCO as a parallel platform to BRICS in articulating the concerns of a multipolar world. And three, the subtle but unmistakable hint that India is no longer willing to play second fiddle to any bloc, East or West.

As I see it, India did its part well at Tianjin. It held its own in the presence of two giants, strengthened old bonds with Russia, reopened doors with China, and projected itself as a sovereign actor unwilling to be bullied into choices. The SCO Summit may not have redrawn the world map overnight, but it set into motion a conversation about power, parity and partnership. And that conversation is only just beginning.

Seventy, and fortunately, still counting!

Raju Korti
As the clock strikes midnight on August 30, I cross into my seventies. In India, this age is viewed with a certain awe, almost as though life has turned a ceremonial corner. I often wonder why. People do go on to live into their eighties and even their nineties, although such longevity is rare. What makes the seventies so special, I cannot say. Yet I find myself standing at its threshold, proud to be its chosen recipient.

Coffee as the judge at Times function 

There is an inevitability to the march of time, but it also invites introspection. My good old well-wisher, the dashing and eternally youthful Dev Anand, once told me with a twinkle in his eye: growing old is compulsory, but ageing is optional. His words return to me now with a quiet resonance. What keeps me afloat is not the ticking of years but the loyalty of my memory. It has never betrayed me. Childhood episodes, distant yet vivid, come alive with the freshness of yesterday. That vividity has been my compass. Nostalgia, often dismissed by others as the indulgence of the past, has been my lifeline.

In my late sixties I discovered a truth that seems sharper with age: life goes on, utterly indifferent to anyone or anything. It does not pause for triumphs or tragedies. What unsettles us are not events themselves but the emotions they unleash. I prefer to see them as catalysts. The seventies whisper another truth. You are on your own. Your only true companions are conviction and memory. At times I feel my mother delivered me into this world only yesterday. That is how young, or perhaps how ancient, I truly am.

Looking back, the journey has been a mosaic of light and shade, like anyone else’s. Moments of exultation, moments of despair. There were strangers who opened their arms to me and kin who shut their doors. Not all blood is thick; not all strangers are suspect. But time, that great equaliser, teaches you to outgrow betrayal and blesses you with the wisdom that you come alone and you go alone.

In these seven decades, I have been privileged to encounter people of every hue. Celebrities whose names fill headlines, politicians who strutted on national and international stages, ordinary men and women, and even those who might appear utterly inconsequential. Yet my heart has leaned always towards those who live by the simple creed that has guided me: love and be loved. Life, distilled to its essence, is nothing more than that.

The rigours of 70s!

Crossing into the seventies feels less like surrender and more like a renewal. It is an opportunity to simplify life, to release grudges and regrets, to nurture health, and to treasure friendships that have endured. Ten years ago, when I survived a near-fatal coronary bypass, every dawn became a new lease of life. Today I stand at seventy, grateful, curious, and ready to embrace each day with intention.

Ageing, of course, is not without its toll. The body carries the quiet signs of pure aging, those universal shifts of time. But with every wrinkle and scar comes another layer of perspective. What once felt like middle age now yields to the honest recognition of old age. And yet, I refuse to surrender to it.

I have lost my parents, two brothers, and a sister. Their absence is a shadow, but around me remain friends who love me fiercely, colleagues who stood by me, and students who once hero-worshipped me. Some admired me, others reviled me, but together they shaped my life. I hold no regrets. If I ever sit down to write my memoirs, I dare say it will be a bestseller, not merely for its truths but for the cadence and flourish of my words.

At seventy, the road behind me stretches with stories untold and the road ahead, though shorter, glimmers with promise. I do not see this as an ending but as another beginning. The leaf may be dry, but it still rustles with life.

NB: 70th birthday hai to do photos ka indulgence to banta hai. I am no narcissist, you know.

Asteroids, space junk and the gravity of consequence

Raju Korti
I often wonder if the ancient proverb “what goes up must come down” was meant not only for human ambition but also for our reckless adventure into space. After reading a recent article on the mounting threat of space debris, that thought became sharper. Since Sputnik’s lonely beeping in 1957, nearly 20,000 satellites have been thrust skyward. Seventy percent of them still hang in orbit, while others have either broken apart or plummeted back to Earth. We call it space junk, but that term hardly captures the menace.

Just ask the residents of Mukuku village in Kenya, who woke up one December morning to find a smouldering ten-foot-wide titanium ring in their fields. It had fallen from the heavens, defying our illusion of control. Had it landed on homes, the story might have been told in tragedy.

Every other day, NASA warns of asteroids brushing too close for comfort. In the last five years alone, hundreds of such alerts have been issued, making one wonder whether the agency should set up a full-fledged Department of Asteroids. The frequency is almost comical, if not for the lurking threat. Asteroids may be ancient wanderers, but our contribution is newer and no less ominous: more than 600,000 pieces of man-made debris spinning above us at 18,000 miles an hour. From paint flakes to abandoned satellites, each one is a bullet without a trigger, waiting for collision.

Do we have a dumping ground for such detritus of human progress? None yet. And the irony is bitter. We cannot rid ourselves of mountains of garbage on Earth, and now we have extended our footprint of waste to the skies.

The international community treats this issue with the kind of distracted awareness one reserves for a distant storm. Yet every year, the risk grows. From what I understand, the number of tracked debris has risen sharply, and already 36,000 large chunks threaten to make Low Earth Orbit a perilous no-go zone. If that day comes, exploration may stall, communication networks may suffer, and the promise of space could turn into an obstacle course of our own making.

Perhaps the lesson is a philosophical one. Civilizations may dream of reaching the stars, but unless they learn to clear their mess, the heavens will remind them of their limits. Just as empires crumble and towers fall, so too must space-borne relics return to Earth. Sometimes gently, sometimes with fire. The skies, after all, were never meant to be a landfill.

From Ghalib to Trump: The rise and rise of ‘Chutiya’

Raju Korti
There was a time when this word was spoken in hushed tones. It was a private indulgence of men, tucked away from polite company. Its sting was sharp but private. Mothers would pretend not to hear it. Fathers would cough loudly if it escaped their sons’ lips. And yet, like all forbidden fruit, it thrived. Now, thanks to Christine Fair, it has become an international export. 

Fair, a professor at Georgetown University, yesterday stirred controversy by referring to US President Donald Trump as "Chutiya", a Hindi profanity, during a live interview with Pakistani origin analyst Moeed Pirzada. She used the word not once but a couple of times, while discussing the US foreign policy. From the galli to Georgetown University. From paan shops to prime-time interviews. Quite the global leap. It is perhaps the only Indian export that needed no trade treaty, no WTO clearance, and no marketing campaign.

C. Christine Fair (filegrab)

It takes nerve to call the President of the United States a “chutiya”. Even if that President happens to be Donald Trump. Fair must be applauded for her audacity. Trump deserves credit too. Few men rise to such heights of absurdity that they inspire this particular honour in public. In a way, both are pioneers.

In India, the word has had a longer apprenticeship. It was practically newsroom currency. In our newsrooms, it was practically a second byline. I particularly remember in the mid-eighties, the (late) Mohammad Saghir, (Peace be upon him!) a sub editor with a wicked tongue. With unmatched wit, he made it an anthem. Our General Manager, who had zero idea of news, display and design grids, made it a point to carry a book “World’s 50 Best Newspapers”. He would walk into the newsroom every evening and ask the night sub in-charge to replicate the complicated layout of one of the newspapers in it. One such evening he demanded a layout copied from the Spanish newspaper El Pais. Saghir hardly waited for his back to turn around, chuckled like a hyena, and declared, “Duniya mein chutiyon ki kami nahi hai Ghalib…..”, leaving us to complete the original but profound quote. We nearly fell off our chairs. It was irreverence, scholarship, and satire rolled into one. And it stuck.

The word’s democratic (and universal!) spirit spared no one. Chief Ministers, cabinet ministers, editors, bureaucrats, peons -- all were within its range. History, of course, has its favourite jokes. As Editor of the Free Press Journal in 2004, I once cut out the very opening line from a story filed for its sister Marathi publication Nav Shakti. Vilasrao Deshmukh, then Chief Minister, had retorted to a petitioning leader with “Aamhala kaay chutiya samajta ka?” It was accurate reporting, but not quite printworthy. It was a rib-tickling copy with all frills of an exciting political theatre but I snipped the line from the copy, only to spark a debate that lasted days. Should facts be printed as spoken? Or does editorial judgement play censor? In that one word lay the whole dilemma of journalism. Fidelity versus discretion. Was discretion wise or did it betray the spirit of truth? In hindsight, it was both.

But the word refused to stay caged. It slipped out of newsrooms and political corridors, and settled comfortably into middle-class drawing rooms. I realised it had gone mainstream the day a polite neighbourhood aunty, all of fifty plus, reprimanded a carpenter with, “Humko kya chutiya samjha hai?” There it was, spoken with the confidence of someone asking for another round of chai. The word had crossed the final frontier. I realised its time had truly come. Now with Christine Fair, it has marched into the halls of global diplomacy.

My US-based journalist friend Mayank Chhaya reminds that even its intonation is an art form. He says the insult has multiple shades depending on tone. A clipped “chutiya” might mean harmless stupidity. A stretched “chuuutiiiyaa” suggests dangerous incompetence. A muttered version, accompanied by a sigh, conveys resignation at the state of the world. We once joked that someone should write a grammar of the word, complete with tenses and degrees of comparison. Chutiya, more chutiya, most chutiya. Now Christine Fair has catapulted it to international stardom. Trump, unwittingly, has given it the White House seal. One cannot deny the irony. America, after all, prides itself on soft power. Hollywood, hamburgers, hip-hop. India has responded with one four-syllable export. Compact. Potent. Unmistakable.

The only risk is that overuse may blunt its sting. What was once a loaded insult may end up as casual banter. Imagine Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries placing it neatly between “chutney” and “churn.” Will the word lose its power when dressed in academic robes? Will it still retain its bite? Or will it become a tired cliché, like “awesome” or “literally”? Perhaps the day is not far when world leaders will shrug it off like a badge of honour. Until then, we can sit back, sip our cutting chai, and marvel at how one earthy Indian word has managed what no diplomat ever could. It has united the world in knowing exactly what it means. Perhaps. But until then, we can sit back and watch as it continues its unstoppable march from mohalla to Manhattan.