Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Monday, October 13, 2025

From Bamiyan to Delhi: The BJP’s Hypocritical Embrace of the Taliban

How India’s Ruling Party Shifted from Condemning Buddha’s Destruction to Hosting Taliban Leaders — and Why Questioning It Makes You an Enemy

In March 2001, the world watched in horror as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan dynamited the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas — two towering statues carved into cliffsides in the 6th century, symbols of Afghanistan’s rich Buddhist heritage. The act was not just cultural vandalism; it was a deliberate erasure of history by religious extremists. India, under the BJP-led government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was among the loudest voices in condemnation. The Ministry of External Affairs issued statements urging the Taliban to protect the relics, and India co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution decrying the destruction.

Protests erupted across the country, with Sangh Parivar affiliates — often vocal defenders of Hindu heritage — taking to the streets to decry the Taliban’s barbarism. Fast forward to October 2025, and the same BJP government, now led by Narendra Modi, is hosting a high-level Taliban delegation in Delhi. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar shakes hands with Taliban FM Amir Khan Muttaqi, and India announces the reopening of its embassy in Kabul.

What happened to the outrage? Apparently, it’s all “diplomacy” now.

This isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a glaring example of political hypocrisy, where principles bend to the winds of power. The same “sanghis” who once burned effigies of the Taliban are now defending the regime’s visit as strategic necessity. Question it, and you’re dismissed as ignorant of geopolitics — or worse, anti-national. But let’s unpack this turnaround, because it reveals a deeper rot: the demand for unconditional loyalty to the government, no matter how contradictory its actions.

The 2001 Outrage: When the Taliban Were the Ultimate Villains

Back in 2001, the Taliban’s edict to destroy “idols” like the Bamiyan Buddhas was met with global revulsion. Mullah Omar’s regime justified it as Islamic purity, but it was widely seen as an assault on shared human heritage.

In India, the BJP government didn’t mince words. On February 27, 2001, it condemned the decree and called for the protection of the statues.

Reports from the time describe widespread protests, including in Buddhist communities and among right-wing groups who framed it as an attack on ancient Indic civilization.

The Sangh Parivar, with its emphasis on cultural preservation, was particularly vocal. RSS affiliates organized demonstrations, drawing parallels to historical invasions that targeted temples. It was a moment of unity: the Taliban were the bad guys, pure and simple.Even years later, BJP leaders referenced the Bamiyan destruction as evidence of the Taliban’s fanaticism. In a 2021 speech, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath equated support for the Taliban with anti-humanity and anti-India acts, warning against sympathizers and even jailing people accused of celebrating the group’s takeover of Kabul.

The message was clear: The Taliban represented everything the BJP claimed to oppose — religious extremism, destruction of heritage, and threats to India’s security.

2025: From Protests to Protocol

Cut to October 2025. Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi arrives in India for a groundbreaking week-long visit — the first by a senior Taliban official since the 2021 takeover.

He’s greeted warmly, meets with Jaishankar and NSA Ajit Doval, and discusses trade, humanitarian aid, and regional stability.

India upgrades its Kabul mission to a full embassy, signaling deeper ties.

Muttaqi even visits Deoband in Uttar Pradesh, home to a prominent Islamic seminary, under heavy security provided by the state government.

The irony? This is the same Yogi Adityanath who, in 2021, accused Deoband clerics of backing the Taliban and arrested Muslims on flimsy charges of Taliban sympathy.

Now, his administration is rolling out the red carpet, complete with Z-plus security and transportation for the delegation.

Critics like PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti have called out the hypocrisy, noting how the BJP embraces the Taliban abroad while targeting Indian Muslims at home.

When questioned, the response is predictable: “It’s diplomacy.” “Geopolitics demands it.” India needs to counter China’s influence in Afghanistan, secure trade routes via Chabahar, and isolate Pakistan amid its tensions with the Taliban over the Durand Line.

Fair points, perhaps. But why the selective amnesia? The Taliban hasn’t changed — women’s rights are still curtailed, minorities persecuted, and terror groups like TTP find safe havens. Engaging them might be pragmatic, but pretending the 2001 outrage never happened? That’s gaslighting.

Yogi’s U-Turn: From Jailing Supporters to Guarding Leaders

Yogi Adityanath embodies this flip-flop. In September 2021, he declared, “Supporting Taliban means backing anti-India, anti-humanity acts.”

His government cracked down, arresting young Muslims for alleged pro-Taliban posts or celebrations.

Fast forward to 2025, and Yogi’s UP police are providing security to Muttaqi’s delegation during their Deoband visit.

Old videos of Yogi’s rants have gone viral, sparking debates on social media.

This isn’t isolated. It’s part of a pattern where past condemnations evaporate when convenient. The Taliban, once equated with terror, are now partners in “regional stability.” And if you point out the inconsistency? You’re told to trust the government’s wisdom.

The Bigger Picture: Trump, China, and the Cult of Unquestioning Loyalty

This Taliban tango isn’t unique. Look at Donald Trump. In 2020, BJP supporters built a temple for him in Telangana and organized havans across India praying for his election win.

Modi called him “my friend,” and crowds chanted “Namaste Trump” at rallies. But by 2025, with Trump back in power and slapping 50% tariffs on Indian imports, he’s the villain.

Relations have soured over trade, Kashmir mediation offers, and energy disputes. Overnight, the narrative flips — no questions asked.

Same with China. For years, Xi Jinping was the enemy — border clashes, economic boycotts, apps banned. Yet in August 2025, Modi meets Xi in Tianjin, shakes hands, and calls for partnership.

“India and China are partners, not rivals,” they declare.

Tomorrow, it could be Pakistan: “Oh, they’re friends now.” And the faithful are expected to nod along.

This is the essence of “andhbhakti” — blind devotion. You’re not supposed to think independently. If the government says Taliban bad, echo it. If it says good, pivot. Spread the WhatsApp forwards, defend the Godi media’s mental gymnastics, and shut down dissent. Questioning isn’t critique; it’s betrayal. The real message: Loyalty to the party trumps principles, history, or logic.

In a democracy, diplomacy should be debated, not deified. The Taliban visit might serve India’s interests, but erasing the Bamiyan memory to justify it insults our intelligence. If “geopolitics” excuses everything, what’s left of accountability? Perhaps it’s time to stop being sheep and start asking why the shepherds keep changing direction.

Monday, October 6, 2025

The CJI Gavai Shoe-Throwing Incident: Unpacking the Controversy, Selective Outrage and Misplaced Anger in India

In a brazen act of courtroom disruption on October 6, 2025, 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ram Gavai during a Supreme Court hearing.

Shouting slogans about the “insult to Sanatan Dharma,” Kishore was swiftly detained by security, but the incident has since spiraled into a national conversation on judicial respect, communal tolerance, and the double standards in India’s socio-political landscape.

This event, rooted in Kishore’s fury over a prior judgment by CJI Gavai, not only exposes the volatility of religious sentiments but also reveals how certain groups weaponize them while others exercise restraint.

Amid this chaos, the Supreme Court has issued numerous judgments in recent years that have been perceived as challenging Muslim practices, yet no Muslim has ever resorted to such violence against the judiciary. This stark difference underscores the Muslim community’s tolerance in the face of adversity. Meanwhile, the lack of stringent action against Kishore — despite his act — highlights how Hindutva fanatics often evade accountability, potentially emboldening further extremism.

The Prior Judgment: A Misconstrued Remark on Lord Vishnu and the Role of ASI

The shoe-throwing incident was not spontaneous but stemmed from simmering resentment over a Supreme Court judgment delivered by CJI Gavai in mid-September 2025, in what has come to be known as the Khajuraho case.

The plea, filed by a devotee, sought directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu, which had been beheaded during the Mughal era and was discovered as an archaeological artifact in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

Dismissing the petition, CJI Gavai emphasized that the matter fell squarely under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), an expert body responsible for preserving historical artifacts.

He noted, “It’s an archaeological find, whether the ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not… there are various issues.”

In a light-hearted aside to the petitioner, who professed deep devotion to Lord Vishnu, the CJI suggested, “If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.”

This remark was misconstrued by elements within the Hindutva ecosystem as an insult to Sanatan Dharma, with critics accusing the CJI of mocking Hindu beliefs and deities.

However, the comment was far from insulting — it was a pragmatic redirection to the appropriate authority, underscoring the judiciary’s role in deferring to specialized bodies like the ASI for matters involving historical preservation.

CJI Gavai later clarified his stance, affirming, “I respect all religions” and emphasizing his belief in true secularism, while noting that his words had been taken out of context.

The judgment itself was neutral, avoiding judicial overreach into archaeological decisions.The ASI, established in 1861, operates under the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As such, any policy on restoring or altering artifacts like the Vishnu idol ultimately falls under the executive branch’s purview. If the Hindutva ecosystem is dissatisfied with the ASI’s potential reluctance — due to guidelines protecting the integrity of historical finds — they should direct their ire toward the Modi government, which has the authority to influence or amend such policies through legislative or administrative means.

Yet, the outrage has been disproportionately aimed at CJI Gavai, perhaps because deferring to the ASI disrupts narratives seeking judicial validation for religious restorations. This misplaced anger ignores the government’s role, raising questions about whether the criticism is truly about devotion or a strategic attack on judicial independence.

Supreme Court Judgments and the Muslim Community’s Restraint

In contrast to this aggressive response, the Supreme Court has handed down several rulings in recent years that have directly impacted Muslim communities, often reshaping their religious and cultural practices. The 2017 ban on instant triple talaq, the 2022 upholding of hijab restrictions in certain educational institutions, and ongoing discussions on a Uniform Civil Code have all been met with criticism from Muslim groups for encroaching on personal laws.

Despite these setbacks, Muslims have channeled their dissent through peaceful protests, legal appeals, and democratic engagement — never through physical assaults on judges.

No Muslim has thrown a shoe at a CJI, even amid judgments perceived as biased or intrusive. This pattern of tolerance, rooted in a commitment to non-violence and institutional respect, stands as a testament to the community’s resilience. As social media users have pointed out, “Muslims face rulings on talaq, polygamy, and more, yet respond with petitions, not projectiles.”

The shoe incident, conversely, exemplifies how some Hindutva proponents resort to extremism when faced with even mild judicial pushback.

Hindutva Fanatics Roam Free: No FIR, Muted Response

Following the incident, Kishore was questioned and released without an FIR being filed, as CJI Gavai personally directed officials not to press charges, opting instead for composure and continuity in proceedings.

The Bar Council of India suspended his license, but Kishore expressed no regret, claiming a “divine force” compelled him.

This leniency is telling: Had the perpetrator been Muslim, the fallout would be immense — multiple FIRs under contempt and assault charges, nationwide condemnations from BJP leaders, and a barrage of dehumanizing campaigns by the party’s IT cell.

In reality, while PM Modi called the act “utterly condemnable,” there have been no statements from the President or governors. BJP figures have issued measured rebukes, but online, Hindutva supporters defend Kishore as a “hero” defending faith. Critics like Nupur J. Sharma have shifted blame to the CJI’s “loose tongue.”

This asymmetry grants a free hand to Hindutva extremists, normalizing violence under religious pretexts.

A Broader Implication: Erosion of Secular Fabric

The episode, intertwined with caste dynamics given CJI Gavai’s Dalit heritage, signals deeper biases.

By targeting the judiciary while sparing the government, the Hindutva narrative risks undermining institutions. India’s Muslims have shown exemplary tolerance; it’s imperative that all communities follow suit to preserve the nation’s democratic ethos. Unchecked, such incidents could pave the way for more “Hindutva terrorism,” where fanaticism trumps law and reason.

Sunday, September 28, 2025

The Trust Trap: How the People Closest to Us Fool Us the Most

In a world overflowing with information, misinformation, and outright deception, we’d like to believe that our inner circle — friends, family, and those who share our worldview — serves as a reliable shield against falsehoods. After all, these are the people we trust implicitly. Yet, paradoxically, it’s often these very individuals who fool us the most. Not necessarily through malicious intent, but because our defenses drop when information comes from familiar sources. We accept their words at face value, bypassing the critical thinking we reserve for outsiders. This blind spot isn’t just a personal quirk; it’s a cognitive vulnerability that permeates our relationships, politics, and society at large.

The Psychology of Unquestioned Trust

At the heart of this phenomenon lies a simple truth: we don’t question what aligns with our existing beliefs. When a friend shares a story that reinforces our views — whether it’s about a cultural tradition, a political scandal, or even a health tip — we let it slide through our mental filters unchallenged. Why? Because it feels right. It echoes our biases, providing that comforting sense of validation. Seeking a second opinion feels unnecessary, even disloyal. After all, if they’re like us, how could they be wrong?

Contrast this with how we respond to information from “the other side.” If someone with an opposing ideology or political leaning makes a claim, our skepticism kicks into overdrive. Driven by the innate human desire to be right (and to prove them wrong), we dig deep — scouring articles, fact-checking sources, and dissecting arguments until we find even a shred of evidence to dismiss it. This selective scrutiny creates an imbalance: we’re hyper-vigilant against external threats but blind to internal ones.

This dynamic plays out vividly in personal relationships. Friends and family, sharing similar values and backgrounds, become unwitting carriers of misinformation. A relative might pass along a family myth or a biased anecdote without verification, and we absorb it as gospel. Over time, these unchallenged narratives shape our worldview, entrenching biases we might otherwise question.

The Political Echo Chamber: Fooled by Our Own Side

Nowhere is this trust trap more evident than in politics. Supporters of a particular party or ideology are most susceptible to deception from within their own ranks. Right-wing individuals, for instance, often get fooled by right-wing sources precisely because those narratives bolster their preconceptions. False claims about immigration, economic policies, or cultural threats circulate freely in these circles, unchecked by criticism. Why bother fact-checking when it feels so affirming?

Meanwhile, the same people will scrutinize left-wing information relentlessly. Every statement from the opposing side is dissected, often until a minor inconsistency allows for outright dismissal. This isn’t unique to one side; it’s a universal bias. Left-leaning individuals fall prey to their own echo chambers just as easily. The result? Polarization deepens, and truth becomes secondary to tribal loyalty.

In India, this issue is amplified by the country’s diverse social fabric. Many live in self-imposed bubbles — offline and online — surrounded by people who mirror their religious, caste, or gender identities. Hindus in predominantly Hindu circles rarely engage with Muslim perspectives, leading to unchecked stereotypes and Islamophobia. Conversely, those immersed in Muslim communities might develop Hinduphobic views without exposure to counter-narratives. Upper-caste groups, insulated from lower-caste experiences, perpetuate casteist attitudes, while male-dominated friend circles foster resistance to feminism.

Social media exacerbates this. Algorithms feed us content that aligns with our likes, creating digital silos where diverse voices are algorithmically excluded. The more time we spend in these bubbles, the harder it becomes to escape. Obnoxious, narrow-minded views thrive in isolation, unchallenged and self-reinforcing.

Breaking Free: The Power of Diversification

The antidote to this deception isn’t cynicism toward those we trust — it’s a deliberate pursuit of diversity. Just as diversification in investing spreads risk and yields better returns, applying it to our social and informational diets builds resilience against bias. This means actively seeking opinions that differ from our own, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Cognitive dissonance — the mental discomfort of holding conflicting ideas — will arise, but it’s a necessary growing pain. Start small: If your network is mostly Hindu, befriend Muslims and listen to their stories. Upper-caste individuals should connect with those from lower castes to understand systemic inequalities. Men in male-heavy circles ought to engage with women to grasp feminist perspectives. And vice versa — the principle applies universally.

In politics, follow sources from across the spectrum. Read critiques of your favorite party; they might reveal blind spots you didn’t know existed. Offline, step out of homogeneous groups: attend interfaith events, join mixed-caste discussions, or participate in gender-diverse forums. Online, curate your feed to include opposing viewpoints rather than muting them.

This isn’t about abandoning your beliefs but enriching them. By exposing ourselves to “the other,” we sharpen our critical thinking, reduce susceptibility to deception, and foster empathy. In a divided world, especially in multicultural societies like India, this diversification isn’t just wise — it’s essential for personal growth and societal harmony.

Stepping Out of the Bubble

Ultimately, the people we trust fool us not because they’re inherently untrustworthy, but because we let them. Our biases create the perfect environment for unchallenged ideas to flourish. Recognizing this is the first step toward liberation. The next is action: break the cycle of narrow-mindedness by embracing discomfort and seeking diverse perspectives.

In doing so, we don’t just avoid being fooled — we become wiser, more compassionate versions of ourselves. After all, true wisdom isn’t found in echo chambers; it’s forged in the friction of differing worlds. So, reach out, listen, and question — even those you hold dear. Your mind, and your relationships, will thank you.

Monday, September 22, 2025

Conservatism or Reactionary Politics: What Defines India Today?

Politics in India has always been a delicate balance between the pull of tradition and the push of reform. In this tension, two closely related yet distinct currents often appear: conservatism and reactionary politics. While they are sometimes confused, they carry different implications for democracy, society, and governance.

Conservatism in India

Conservatism refers to the preference for continuity, gradual change, and respect for tradition. It is not necessarily anti-reform, but it resists sudden or radical transformation. In India, conservatism manifests in several ways:

Social sphere: Reluctance to rapidly accept changes in gender roles, LGBTQ rights, or interfaith marriages.
Economic sphere: Skepticism toward aggressive privatization, with greater comfort in a mixed economy and welfare-oriented state.
Political sphere: Commitment to constitutional democracy and parliamentary traditions, even amidst turbulence.
Cultural sphere: Deep respect for festivals, customs, and family structures, with selective adaptation to modern lifestyles.

Conservatism is thus woven into India’s societal fabric, guiding how reforms are absorbed over time.

Reactionary Politics in India

Reactionary politics, unlike conservatism, is not about preserving the present but about reversing reforms and restoring a perceived “golden past.” In India, it has taken several forms:

Colonial era: Resistance to reforms like widow remarriage or the abolition of Sati.
Post-Independence: Opposition to progressive initiatives like the Hindu Code Bill or caste-based reservations.
Recent decades: Mobilizations around religious nationalism, backlash against globalization, and moral policing against Western cultural practices.

Unlike conservatism, which accepts change slowly, reactionary politics thrives on confrontation and nostalgia.

Which is More Prevalent Today?

Indian society largely functions on conservative instincts — slow adaptation, negotiation between tradition and reform, and preference for incremental change. However, in the political sphere, reactionary currents have become more visible in recent decades.

Religious majoritarian movements, rewriting of cultural narratives, and caste-based backlash politics reflect reactionary impulses.
Yet, everyday life — from acceptance of technology to gradual shifts in gender relations — shows that conservatism, not reaction, is the dominant social force

Conclusion

India is defined by a coexistence of conservatism and reactionary politics. Conservatism shapes the rhythm of social change, ensuring continuity amidst reform. Reactionary politics, on the other hand, erupts when groups feel threatened, often amplifying polarization and nostalgia-driven politics. The challenge for Indian democracy is to ensure that conservatism evolves into constructive reform, while preventing reactionary tendencies from undermining pluralism and constitutional values.

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

Deep dive into Indian Savarna Merit Discussions Online

Deep dive into Savarna Merit Discussions Online

Oh man, here we go again with these Savarna upper-caste crybabies whining about “merit” like it’s some sacred cow that’s been slaughtered by reservations. As if merit was ever a thing in this country for the last 3000 years! Let me ask you: where the hell was this precious “merit” when temple priest positions were straight-up reserved for Brahmins? Generation after generation, locked in by birthright, no exams, no interviews — just “you’re born into it, congrats, you’re holy.” Sounds like the ultimate quota system, doesn’t it? But oh no, that was “tradition,” not nepotism or exclusion.

And don’t even get me started on education. Where was merit when lower castes were flat-out denied the right to learn? Beaten, ostracized, or worse if they dared pick up a book. For centuries, knowledge was hoarded like gold by the upper castes, while everyone else was told to clean their shit and stay in their lane. Now suddenly, when reservations try to level the playing field a tiny bit, these folks act like the sky is falling. “Merit is dead!” they scream. Bro, merit was never alive for most of India — it was a rigged game from day one.

But nowadays? It’s peak absurdity. These idiots blame EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM in India on reservations. There’s a pothole on the road? “Reservations did it!” Bridge collapses? “Damn those quota hires!” Someone leaves India for better opportunities? “Reservations pushed them out!” Hell, some poor soul tweets about going abroad for higher studies, and boom — some genius retweets it with “See? Reservations are killing talent!” Or lands a foreign job? “If not for reservations, more ‘meritorious’ people would stay!” Like, what? Do these people even hear themselves? It’s like reservations are the ultimate scapegoat for corruption, incompetence, and systemic failures that have nothing to do with it.

And let’s talk about what “merit” really means, because these clowns never stop to think. They peddle this fairy tale that merit is just pure hard work, like we’re all starting from the same line. Bullshit! Merit is shaped by privilege, plain and simple. Lakhs of rupees poured into coaching classes, fancy private schools, high-speed internet, world-class textbooks, tutors, libraries — stuff that lower castes and marginalized folks often can’t even dream of. Your “merit” is built on a mountain of resources handed to you on a silver platter. Ignore that (which is stupid AF), and what are you even implying? That only upper castes/Savarnas are hardworking and talented enough for success? That the rest are somehow inferior, lazy, or undeserving? Sounds suspiciously like what white supremacists spew in the US about Black people being “inherently lesser.” No difference, folks — these caste supremacists are just brown versions of the same toxic ideology.

Wake up, India. Reservations aren’t the villain; they’re a band-aid on a gaping wound caused by millennia of oppression. If you really care about merit, fight for equal access for everyone, not just your echo chamber. Until then, spare us the tears. #CastePrivilege #MeritMyth #EndCasteism

Friday, September 5, 2025

Why India’s 40% GST on Zero-Sugar Beverages is Bad Policy — And Should Not Be Treated Like Tobacco or Pan Masala

Why India’s 40% GST on Zero-Sugar Beverages is Bad Policy — And Should Not Be Treated Like Tobacco or Pan Masala

India’s recent GST overhaul puts carbonated drinks — including zero-sugar, “diet” and “sugar-free” soft drinks — into the same 40% tax bracket as tobacco products, pan masala, and luxury vehicles. Ostensibly, the goal is to curb non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by discouraging unhealthy consumption. But lumping zero-sugar sodas with genuinely harmful goods is a mistake that undermines both public health and economic logic.

Sugar-Free Is Not Sin: Understanding the Science

Let’s get the facts straight. The scientific case for taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is robust: high consumption of sugary drinks increases risk for obesity, diabetes, and dental decay. The World Health Organization (WHO) and governments worldwide have endorsed sugar taxes to incentivize reformulation and healthier choices.

But shifting to sugar-free alternatives is exactly what such policies are supposed to encourage. Research from the UK shows that sugar taxes, when designed right, led to a 46% reduction in the sugar content of soft drinks due to massive industry reformulation — all while low- and zero-sugar variants multiplied on supermarket shelves and became the “default” for many consumers.

The harm is in the added sugar, not the fizz, color, or presence of non-nutritive sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose. If policy treats all carbonated drinks as equally “sinful,” then it punishes both reformulation and consumer effort to cut sugar — a perverse outcome.

Zero-Sugar: The Benefits and Busting the Myths

1. Weight and Metabolic Health:
Randomized controlled trials consistently show that substituting sugary sodas with diet or zero-calorie drinks supports weight loss and better glycemic control, without raising blood glucose — crucial for diabetics or those at risk. No, zero-sugar sodas do not “make you fat,” as some headlines claim. The strongest causal evidence says they help weight management compared to their sugary counterparts.

2. Dental Health:
Free sugars are the main driver of dental caries worldwide. Sugar-free alternatives don’t feed dental bacteria that cause decay. Acidity in all sodas still poses risks to teeth, but this is far less damaging than the potent effect of sugar.

3. Sweetener Safety:
What about aspartame and cancer headlines? Both the WHO/FAO Joint Committee (JECFA, 2023) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have reviewed the evidence exhaustively and reaffirmed that aspartame, sucralose, and permitted sweeteners are safe within accepted daily intake limits for humans. No regulator has found credible evidence of harm from typical consumption.

Why the 40% GST Slab is a Mistake

Misclassifies the real harm: Putting zero-sugar sodas in the same category as cigarettes, pan masala, or low-tariff sugar confections (which often face just 5% GST) confuses the actual health target. The aim is reducing added sugars, not penalizing the act of drinking sparkling water mixed with non-caloric flavor.
Removes incentive to reformulate: International best practice — like the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy — taxes by sugar content, explicitly rewarding companies that cut sugar and encouraging consumers to make better choices. Blanket taxes on all carbonated drinks make that incentive vanish
Distorts prices, hurts consumers: Lower-income groups are hit hardest by regressive “sin” taxes. Making healthier substitutions more expensive removes affordable, lower-calorie options.
Undermines credibility: When mithai or high-sugar sweets are taxed at much lower rates than sugar-free sodas, the GST regime sends mixed signals and loses credibility as a tool for public health, not just revenue.

The Way Forward: Tax Sugar, Not Substitutes

India should adopt a sugar-threshold approach for beverage taxation, as recommended by WHO and proven effective worldwide:

Tax only those beverages that exceed clear sugar-content thresholds (e.g., ≥5g/100ml and ≥8g/100ml), and exempt zero-sugar/zero-calorie drinks entirely, or tax them at the standard GST rate.
Pair SSB-tax revenues with investments in clean water and NCD prevention — making the policy a “win-win-win” for health, budgets, and fairness

Bottom Line

Zero-sugar sodas should never be in the same tax basket as tobacco or high-sugar soft drinks. Public health policy must reward, not punish, efforts to cut sugar and improve diets. India has the opportunity — and the research — to get this right. Let’s tax the problem, not the solution.

References available on request. All facts presented here are based on the latest scientific evidence and the cited global policy experiences.

Gerontocracy in Indian Politics: Why Our Leaders Don’t Reflect the Country’s Youth

India is young. Its politicians are not.

While the average Indian is about 28 years old, the people governing India are among the oldest in the country’s history. This generational distortion — where lawmakers are far older than the citizens they represent — is known as gerontocracy. Recent data from the 18th Lok Sabha, current state assemblies, and the top echelons of government shows how deeply this phenomenon runs through Indian democracy.

The Stark Age Gap: Parliament and Assemblies vs The People

Numbers don’t lie:

Average age of 18th Lok Sabha MPs (elected in 2024): 56 years — the highest ever.
Only 11% of MPs are aged 40 or younger; more than half are 55+, and the oldest is 82.
State assemblies: A nationwide ADR analysis of 4,092 MLAs finds that over 61% are above 50. Just 11% are under 40, showcasing a similar tilt toward the aged.

By contrast:

India’s median age (2024): ~28.4 years — with over 65% of citizens below 35.
The average Rajya Sabha member is estimated to be well over 60.

A Portrait of India’s Greying Power Structure

Despite having the world’s largest youth population, the highest offices of Indian politics and administration add up to a formidable portrait of elder leadership:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will turn 75 in September 2025; already one of India’s oldest serving PMs.
National Security Advisor Ajit Doval is 80 years old as of 2025 — India’s oldest and longest-serving NSA.
Key Chief Ministers:
Pinarayi Vijayan (Kerala): 80 (oldest CM in office)
Nitish Kumar (Bihar): 73
Mamata Banerjee (West Bengal): 70
Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh): 75
Yogi Adityanath (Uttar Pradesh): 53
Pema Khandu (Arunachal Pradesh): 46 (youngest among major states)
Revanth Reddy (Telangana): 55
Mohan Yadav (Madhya Pradesh): 59
Other senior figures:
Sonia Gandhi (Congress leader): 78
Rajnath Singh (Defence): 74
Amit Shah (Home): 60

Lok Sabha youngest and oldest MPs:

Oldest: T. R. Baalu, 82 (Tamil Nadu)
Youngest: Four MPs at 25 (constitutional minimum) — Shambhavi Choudhary, Sanjana Jatav, Pushpendra Saroj, Priya Saroj.

What Does Gerontocracy Mean for Democracy?

A gerontocracy is rule by elders. In India, this means the lived experience and priorities reflected in the law are those of a generation several decades older than India’s average citizen. This can skew legislative focus — employment, digital policy, social media, education, and entrepreneurship issues affecting youth may be interpreted through an out-of-date lens. When older generations dominate, innovation can slow, and youth concerns — including climate, tech, jobs, and mental health — may get less official attention.

Why Are India’s Politicians So Old?

The roots run deep and structural:

Top-Down Nominations: Parties are controlled by concentrated leaderships; tickets for “winnable” seats go mostly to loyal, well-connected veterans.
Weak Intra-Party Democracy: Internal elections or leadership changes rarely elevate younger figures.
Societal Tradition: Seniority is culturally valued, and experience is often equated with age.
No Legal Remedies: While the Constitution sets lower age limits (25 for Lok Sabha/MLA, 30 for Rajya Sabha/MLC), there is no structural mechanism to promote youth candidatures. The Law Commission’s 170th report highlights the urgent need for intra-party reforms and greater transparency.
Safety for Parties: Older politicians are seen as a “safe bet,” especially in risk-averse electoral environments

Is It a Problem Unique to India?

Globally, parliaments are older than populations. However, for a country where the youth form the largest chunk of voters in the world, the disconnect is more dramatic and consequential. The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s data shows that only about 2.8% of global MPs are under 30, underscoring how rare it is to see real youth representation at the top.

Fixing the Gap: What Will It Take?

Internal Party Democracy:
Legal reforms enforcing regular, transparent inner-party elections and term limits can force parties to broaden their leadership pipelines.
Affirmative Action:
Youth quotas in ticket allotment, modeled on gender reservations, could be considered.
Institutional Innovation:
Regular youth parliaments, mentorship programs, and seats for youth representatives in important committees would mainstream young voices.
Societal Change:
Voters increasingly demanding younger candidates will shift party priorities.

Conclusion: A Demographic Dividend, Squandered?

India’s democracy is often celebrated for its vibrancy, but its most vital demographic — youth — struggles to be heard where it matters most. Power’s “age wall” is rising at precisely the moment when India needs bold, youthful thinking the most. If the promise of India’s demographic dividend is to be realized, Parliament and state assemblies must reflect not just the wisdom of age but the promise and perspective of youth.

It’s time for India’s politics to grow younger — for the sake of its democracy and its future.

Monday, August 25, 2025

Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect in India’s Policy Making

Public policy in India often suffers from a gap between intention and outcome. At the heart of this paradox lie two concepts from economics and social sciences — Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect. Both capture how well-meaning metrics and incentives can backfire, especially in a diverse democracy where welfare delivery faces challenges of scale, leakages, and local adaptation.

Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect: A Primer

Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Once metrics are linked to rewards, people start gaming the system rather than solving the real problem.
Cobra Effect: Named after colonial India, when the British offered money for every dead cobra to reduce their population. Citizens began breeding cobras to kill and sell for reward. When the policy was scrapped, the cobras were released, worsening the problem.

Both highlight how poorly designed incentives distort behavior and create perverse outcomes.

Case Studies from Indian Policy and Welfare Schemes

1. Learning Outcomes in Education

India’s school education policy historically measured success by enrollment and infrastructure — number of classrooms, midday meals, teacher recruitment. As per Goodhart’s Law, once these became targets, states focused on inflating enrollment and building structures, while learning outcomes stagnated. The ASER reports (2005–2022) consistently showed that even after years of schooling, many children struggled with basic arithmetic and reading.

2. MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act)

The world’s largest employment guarantee scheme aimed at providing 100 days of work per household. But linking performance to “number of person-days generated” led to inflated work records, ghost workers, and incomplete assets. Instead of durable rural infrastructure, the incentive system sometimes encouraged quantity over quality.

3. Janani Suraksha Yojana (Maternal Health)

Cash incentives to institutionalize deliveries reduced home births dramatically. But in several cases, women were rushed into hospitals for monetary reasons without adequate facilities or postnatal care. The target — numbers of institutional deliveries — became more important than the quality of maternal and infant health services.

4. Toilet Construction under Swachh Bharat Mission

The ambitious mission reported near-total household toilet coverage by 2019. However, several surveys revealed issues of toilet functionality, water access, and behavioral usage. The rush to meet construction targets often overlooked sustainability — showing the classic Goodhart’s Law trade-off between numbers vs. actual sanitation outcomes.

5. Fertilizer and Subsidy Policies

Incentives to increase foodgrain production during the Green Revolution led to overuse of urea subsidies, distorting soil health and groundwater tables. Farmers optimized to maximize subsidies and yields, not long-term sustainability — an unintended “cobra effect” that still burdens Indian agriculture today.

Why These Effects Persist in India

Target-driven bureaucracy — Officers are evaluated on achieving measurable outputs, not nuanced outcomes.
Political pressures — Short-term results look better in electoral cycles.
Scale of welfare schemes — With hundreds of millions of beneficiaries, central monitoring relies heavily on metrics.
Weak feedback loops — Ground-level realities are often masked by inflated reporting.
Resource constraints — Quantity becomes easier to track than quality.

The Way Forward: Designing Better Policies

Focus on outcomes, not just outputs — Eg. measuring literacy and numeracy skills instead of only school enrollments.
Build feedback loops — Independent social audits, community scorecards, and civil society participation.
Use technology smartly — Aadhaar-linked DBTs, geotagging assets, real-time dashboards to reduce gaming.
Align incentives with behavior change — Example: moving Swachh Bharat from construction to sustained usage through campaigns.
Flexibility and local adaptation — One-size-fits-all metrics often fail; decentralization can ensure context-specific outcomes.

Conclusion

India’s welfare architecture is massive and ambitious, but the lessons of Goodhart’s Law and the Cobra Effect remind us that badly designed metrics can derail even the best policies. True success lies not in ticking boxes but in improving lived realities — healthy mothers, educated children, sustainable agriculture, and dignified rural employment.

As India moves towards becoming the world’s third-largest economy, its governance must also mature from counting numbers to measuring impact.

Friday, August 15, 2025

India’s 35 Million–Strong Diaspora: Pride Without Power?

Every January, we celebrate Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas with pomp and pride. Politicians beam about the 35 million Indians abroad, often calling them “India’s ambassadors to the world.” We highlight the parade of Indian-origin CEOs — Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Arvind Krishna — as proof that Indian talent dominates global boardrooms. We’ve even sweetened the deal with OCI cards, allowing them to keep a foot in the Indian door.

And yet, when it comes to protecting India’s core economic interests, this vast network has been silent — sometimes uncomfortably so.

The Test Case: US Tariffs

When the United States imposed tariffs affecting Indian goods — steel, aluminium, and later other sectors — New Delhi expected that the strong Indian-American presence, especially in policy circles and corporate corridors, might help soften the blow. After all, this is the same diaspora that India celebrates at every opportunity.

But there was no organized lobbying, no public campaign, no high-profile voices condemning the move. The Indian-American community, despite its political clout and economic influence, remained on the sidelines.

Why the Silence?

National Loyalty vs. Cultural Roots
Most diaspora members, especially those in positions of power, are now citizens of their adopted countries. When push comes to shove, their legal and political obligations lie there, not here.
Corporate Priorities Over National Affection
A CEO’s primary responsibility is to shareholders, not to the land of their birth. Supporting India against their own government’s trade policy is simply not in their job description.
Fear of Political Backlash
Openly lobbying against a domestic policy of their host country can invite suspicion, accusations of dual loyalty, and professional risk.

The Harsh Reality

We love to imagine that the Indian diaspora is a geopolitical asset, ready to rally for India in times of need. The truth is more sobering: diaspora influence is circumstantial. It can shine in cultural promotion, philanthropy, and bilateral business ties — but when a direct clash of interests arises, their loyalties will align with their passports.

This isn’t betrayal. It’s simply the reality of migration and assimilation.

Rethinking Our Approach

India must recognize that diaspora goodwill ≠ diaspora activism. We can still take pride in their achievements, but we must stop assuming they are a dependable lobbying force for India’s political battles. Instead:

Build our own institutional lobbying capacity abroad.
Strengthen government-to-government channels rather than relying on soft power alone.
Appreciate diaspora contributions where they are effective, but not confuse sentiment with strategy.

Conclusion

Our 35 million–strong diaspora is a source of pride, culture, and connection — but not a shield in economic warfare. They have built lives elsewhere, and when forced to choose, they will side with the nations that now claim their allegiance.

India can celebrate Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas, hand out OCI cards, and beam at the success of Indian-origin leaders. But let’s also accept the reality: in the moments of geopolitical friction, we stand alone.

Saturday, August 9, 2025

Why Modi’s “standing with farmers” rhetoric misses the mark: The real sectors taking the hit

Modi’s emphasis on protecting farmers from US tariffs is politically savvy but economically misleading — agriculture represents only ~6% of India’s $79 billion exports to the US, while far larger non-agricultural sectors are bearing the brunt of Trump’s tariffs.

The sectors actually getting hammered (far bigger than agriculture):

Electronics/IT Hardware: $12.3 billion (largest single category)

Smartphones, semiconductors, IT equipment
Employs millions in urban manufacturing hubs
Currently exempted but vulnerable to policy shifts

Gems & Jewelry: $9.15 billion

Cut diamonds, precious stones, gold jewelry
Faces 52% total tariff, among the highest
30% of sector’s global sales go to US
Heavily concentrated in Gujarat, Mumbai

Pharmaceuticals: $8.7 billion

Generic drugs, APIs, formulations
Currently exempted due to US healthcare dependence
Employs educated middle-class workforce

Machinery/Engineering: $6.48 billion

Auto components, industrial equipment
65%+ US market dependency in some sub-sectors
Major employer in manufacturing states

Textiles/Apparel: $2.9 billion

Faces 59–64% total tariffs (highest of all sectors)
Labor-intensive but much smaller than other hit sectors
Already declining before tariffs

Why the farmer rhetoric is misleading:

Agricultural exports to US: ~$4–5 billion (including marine products)

Rice, spices, marine products make up bulk
Many agricultural items already duty-free or low-tariff
Sector employs many but contributes relatively small export value

The real impact hierarchy:

Urban manufacturing workers (electronics, pharma, engineering) — highest skilled, highest paid
Diamond/jewelry artisans (Gujarat/Mumbai) — traditional but high-value
Textile workers (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka) — labor-intensive but smaller scale
Farmers/fishermen — large numbers but smaller dollar impact

Political calculation behind farmer focus:

Vote bank arithmetic: Farmers are 40%+ of workforce vs. industrial workers ~25%
Emotional resonance: “Annadata” (food provider) narrative plays better than “export manufacturer”
Deflection strategy: Easier to blame external tariffs than address domestic industrial competitiveness
State politics: Key agricultural states (UP, Punjab, Haryana) more electorally critical than industrial centers

What Modi isn’t saying:

The real economic damage is to India’s high-value manufacturing and services sectors that employ educated urban workers, generate higher per-capita income, and drive technology transfer — precisely the sectors needed for India’s “developed nation” aspirations.

Bottom line: Modi’s farmer-centric messaging obscures that urban industrial workers in electronics, pharma, gems, and engineering — not farmers — are taking the biggest economic hit from US tariffs. It’s classic political theater: appeal to the numerically larger but economically smaller constituency while the higher-value sectors suffer quietly.