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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deportations have legal, social and diplomatic headache for India

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

(An AI-generated visual representation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaching out to newer heights of political recklessness!

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

Kejriwal: Wikipedia grab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A Wikipedia grab)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signing the end of the Indian American dream

Raju Korti
As someone who has watched the allure of the American dream captivate generations of Indians, it is sobering to now witness the potential collapse of that dream for many. The executive order recently signed by Donald Trump -- denying birthright citizenship to children born in the US to parents on work visas like H-1B and L1 -- is not just a legislative maneuver but a seismic shift in the lives of millions. The implications are far-reaching, cutting across professional, personal, and societal dimensions.

(An Instagram grab)

The American dream, once synonymous with boundless opportunities and upward mobility, now appears all but over for many Indians. With the denial of birthright citizenship, a critical assurance of stability and future security has been stripped away. For those who invested years navigating the convoluted Green Card process, this policy change is nothing short of a devastating setback.

Let’s start with the premise of why so many Indians venture to the United States. Most go there with high aspirations, eager to seize opportunities in a land perceived as the ultimate meritocracy. These individuals often revel in their success stories, narrating their achievements back home, and positioning themselves as paragons of ambition and resilience. But now, many of these dreamers face a rude awakening. Immigration policies can change on a dime, and what once seemed like a pathway to permanence is now fraught with uncertainty. The promise of birthright citizenship for their children was a cornerstone of this dream, a vital fallback in an already convoluted Green Card process. Without it, the entire foundation begins to crumble.

The professional implications for those facing deportation are stark. Having worked for reputed American brands, many returning individuals may initially enjoy an advantage in India’s job market, leveraging their overseas experience. But this edge is superficial and short-lived. India’s job market, already strained by high competition, is not equipped to absorb an influx of returnees with inflated expectations and often misaligned skill sets. Adjusting to Indian work culture, grappling with lower wages, and reconciling with diminished professional stature can be traumatic.

Socially, the situation is no less challenging. These individuals will need to reintegrate into a society they left behind, often years ago, and where they no longer seamlessly belong. The upheaval affects entire families. Children who were born or raised in the US and have known no other home will struggle to adapt to life in India, dealing with culture shock, educational transitions, and a lack of social familiarity. The returnees’ aspirations of upward mobility, once symbolized by their move to the US, now hang precariously in the balance.

For India, the implications are equally complex. The country’s economy could face additional strain as it tries to accommodate this influx of highly qualified yet disoriented professionals. While their global exposure might enrich certain industries, the mismatch between their expectations and ground realities could lead to widespread frustration. The broader societal impact cannot be ignored either. Resentment among those who have built their lives in India, only to now compete with returnees for limited opportunities, could spark tensions. This is not just about job market dynamics but about perceptions of privilege and entitlement.

On a macro level, the policy shift highlights the fragility of immigration as a long-term strategy. It serves as a stark reminder that, no matter how integrated one becomes in a foreign land, the rules of engagement are never entirely within their control. This unpredictability is compounded by the reality of US immigration policy, which, as evidenced by this order, can be exclusionary even toward those who play by the rules.

As the buffer period of 30 days ticks away and the order’s implementation looms, it is clear that this is not merely a matter of legal technicalities but of disrupted lives. The Indian government, too, will need to prepare for the challenges this wave of returnees will bring, from policy interventions to support frameworks. It’s not just a question of who gets to live the American dream anymore; it’s about how to manage the fallout when that dream is denied.

This development is a sobering lesson in impermanence. It underscores the importance of resilience, adaptability, and the recognition that no opportunity -- no matter how lucrative or seemingly secure—comes without risk. For those staring at the prospect of being deported, the journey ahead will demand nothing short of reinvention.

Justin Trudeau: All gas, no substance!

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

Justin Trudeau (Wikipedia grab)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewriting Protocols: Balancing tradition with practical governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gambhir maamla hai bhai!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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