Some things to Reconsider

The job of a Prime Minister is never an easy one. Some inherit a storm; others inherit calm seas with a steady wind. Jawaharlal Nehru got the raw end of the deal: a traumatised, partitioned land, millions uprooted, and the Cold War beginning to freeze the world in two hostile blocs. Lal Bahadur Shastri died a war time Prime Minister, and Indira Gandhi presided over a war-ravaged economy, staring across hostile borders at Pakistan and China while the superpowers treated India as a pawn. Morarji Desai stumbled into South Block after the Emergency, the West reeling from stagflation and his own coalition too weak to command authority. Rajiv Gandhi, with a brute majority in Parliament, was besieged by multiple insurgencies at home and a belligerent Zia-ul-Haq across the border. P.V. Narasimha Rao had to deal with the mother of all crises—the 1991 balance of payments collapse —just as the Soviet Union, India’s security blanket, disintegrated into history. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who loo...

  So, Javed Akhtar is a “selective atheist”? Really? That’s like accusing someone of being a “part-time vegetarian” because they eat paneer on weekdays and butter chicken at weddings. It’s a joke—except in our poor excuse for a public debate, people are deadly serious when they say such things. Let us begin with first principles. As Benedict Anderson reminded us, nations are “imagined communities.” They are held together not by dogma or theology but by stories, symbols, songs, and rituals. In India, this imagination was never purely Hindu, never purely Muslim, never purely secular either. It has always been a messy, colourful patchwork woven from Tagore’s verse, Gandhi’s politics, Ambedkar’s law, and yes, Bollywood’s lyrics. Now, in this fabric, why must you prove your secularism by mocking every religion equally? Who came up with that idiotic standard? Religion in India is lived in fragments, in uneven doses. Salman Rushdie once joked that being Muslim in Bombay simply meant n...

Not all transformative politicians are populists. Some, like Pratap Singh Kairon of Punjab, were pragmatic state-builders who resisted short-term populist temptations and thought institutionally. Kairon opposed the Punjabi Suba movement on linguistic and religious grounds, invested heavily in long-term electrification, and strengthened rural infrastructure. His fall owed more to the authoritarian style of his administration than to populism. Similarly, K. Kamaraj in Madras pioneered the mid-day meal scheme and educational expansion, embedding social policy in ways that outlived him. Internationally, Jacinda Ardern and Lee Kuan Yew exemplify leaders who did not merely ride waves of mass grievance but channelled state capacity to rebuild polities. But politics has a way of elevating not only such builders but also demagogues and provocateurs. If one studies populists across contexts, three things stand out. First, they rarely create grievances; they exploit those already fermenting b...

 When the history of Indian diplomacy under Narendra Modi is eventually written, it may be remembered not for its strategic breakthroughs, but for its theatrical excesses, its silences in moments of crisis, and its worrying penchant for personalisation over institutional prudence. Modi’s foreign policy, by design, was never meant to be quiet or cautious. From the grand gestures of “Namaste Trump” to his surprise visits to Pakistan, it has been high on drama and low on deliverables. It has sought headlines, not long-term relationships. Unfortunately, in foreign affairs, style without substance often invites consequences. Let us begin closer home. In 2015, when a devastating earthquake struck Nepal, India was the first responder. This was an admirable and expected act by a regional power. However, what could have been a reaffirmation of India’s neighbourhood leadership quickly descended into a public relations disaster. Kathmandu’s citizens and civil society accused India of using ...

https://theprint.in/national-interest/zohran-mamdani-new-york-mayor-indian-socialism/2673153/  https://www.business-standard.com/opinion/columns/zohran-mamdani-socialist-agenda-could-actually-spur-faster-growth-in-nyc-125062701427_1.html Shekhar Gupta’s recent column on Zohran Mamdani reads like a man trying to play neutral referee in a rigged match—raising one eyebrow at the Sanghi mob baying for blood, while slyly tossing them a whistle and pretending not to notice. With the other, it slips the ideological brass knuckles to the crowd already frothing at the mouth. Mamdani, Gupta suggests, is a well-meaning radical caught in a swirl of impractical dreams. But scratch past the polish of editorial polite prose and one finds the familiar discomfort of India’s populists and the extended coterie It’s not that Mamdani’s ideas are too radical—it’s that they are delivered from a platform that can’t be easily dismissed. A brown man, Muslim by heritage, representing a diverse district in ...