Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Thursday, November 6, 2025

Finding Ourselves in the Light -- What Zohran Mamdani’s Victory Teaches Us About Faith, Politics, and Courage


See All News by Ravish Kumar

“I will not change how I eat. I will not change the faith I am proud to belong to. But there is one thing I will change — I will no longer look for myself in the shadow. I will find myself in the light.”

With these words, Zohran Mamdani set the tone for what his historic mayoral campaign in New York represents — not just for America, but for democracies around the world where religion is weaponized to divide.

Mamdani’s campaign and triumph answered two age-old questions: Can faith be separated from politics? And more importantly, why must it be?

His win proved that while religion might never be fully absent from politics, the politics of hate in the name of religion can indeed be defeated.


A Muslim Candidate Who Refused to Be a “Muslim Candidate”

What makes Zohran Mamdani’s journey remarkable is that he never hid his Muslim identity, nor did he seek votes in its name.

His supporters urged him to stay silent when attacked for being Muslim. But he chose speech over silence. He told New Yorkers — yes, he was a Muslim, but above all, he was a citizen seeking the same dignity and equality every New Yorker deserved.

“I am a Muslim,” he said, “but I am not a Muslim candidate. I want to be a leader who fights for every New Yorker — no matter their skin color, religion, or birthplace.”

That clarity disarmed his opponents. He didn’t run from his identity; he transcended it.


The Politics of Dignity vs. The Politics of Fear

For over two decades after 9/11, American Muslims lived under suspicion. Hate was institutionalized — from the airport to the ballot box. Mamdani, a son of immigrants, walked right into that storm.

Opponents painted him as dangerous. Ads funded by billionaires showed his beard exaggerated, his image darkened. TV hosts accused him of wanting to “chair another 9/11.” Others mocked the way he ate.

It was Islamophobia with corporate funding.

Mamdani’s answer was radical — not anger, but empathy. He spoke not just for Muslims, but for all marginalized New Yorkers: the ones who couldn’t afford bus fares, housing, or healthcare.

His campaign revolved around simple, humane issues:

  • Free public transport for working-class people.

  • Affordable housing in a city where the poor are being pushed farther away.

  • Dignity for all, regardless of background.

He reframed the debate — from who belongs to who benefits.


Hate Has Billion-Dollar Sponsors

Mamdani pulled the curtain on something most politicians avoid discussing — how corporate money sustains hate.

He named companies that funded his opponent’s Islamophobic propaganda. “They don’t fear my faith,” he said, “they fear fair wages.”

If workers gain power, corporations lose profits. So they distract the public — through hate, fear, and division.

As Mamdani put it:

“The billionaire class seeks to convince those making $30 an hour that their enemies are those earning $20 an hour. They want us to fight each other, so we forget who truly controls the system.”

It’s the same playbook used across the world — including in India.


Lessons for India

India’s politics runs on similar fuel.
While millions struggle for food, jobs, and education, leaders keep the nation busy fighting imaginary enemies.
The politics of “send them to Pakistan” and “illegal infiltrators” thrives because it’s easier to inflame hatred than to fix hunger.

Even opposition leaders, fearing electoral backlash, shy away from openly supporting Muslim voices or religious minorities.
They whisper when courage demands they speak.

Mamdani did the opposite — he stood beside Imams in public, he embraced his faith openly, and yet, he never made it his electoral plank.
He showed that the antidote to fear is not silence, but visibility.

His politics wasn’t about Muslims, it was about New Yorkers — and that made all the difference.


A New Kind of Campaign: Humanity as Strategy

Mamdani’s campaign turned issues like bus fares into symbols of justice.

New York’s working class — 1.3 million people who commute by bus daily — became central to his vision.
Slow buses meant lost hours, lost wages, and lost dignity.

By fighting for faster, cheaper public transport, Mamdani wasn’t just talking policy — he was talking respect.

He made the working person’s time valuable again.

It’s a politics India’s cities could learn from — where millions commute for hours each day, losing health and hope while leaders argue about faith.


Beyond Religion, Beyond Hate

Zohran Mamdani’s victory is more than electoral. It’s moral.

It proved that people can see through billion-dollar propaganda.
That the politics of fear, no matter how powerful, cannot outlast the politics of belonging.
That you can be proud of your faith without turning it into a weapon.

In a world increasingly consumed by division, Mamdani’s campaign feels like the fresh air Ravish Kumar described — the air many nations are still waiting to breathe.


The Light We Must Step Into

Zohran Mamdani's line now reads less like a statement and more like a manifesto for our times:

“I will no longer look for myself in the shadow. I will find myself in the light.”

Mamdani found his light — not by abandoning faith or identity, but by refusing to let them be twisted into tools of fear.

The rest of us — in Delhi, in Lucknow, in New York — might ask:
Are we still living in the shadows others built for us?
Or are we ready to walk into the light ourselves?


In defeating the politics of hate, Zohran Mamdani hasn’t just changed New York — he’s offered a lesson for the world: the future belongs not to those who divide, but to those who dare to unite.

Tags: Politics,Ravish Kumar,Hindi,Video,

Wednesday, November 5, 2025

Zohran Mamdani - The Immigrant Who Redefined New York’s Politics


See All News by Ravish Kumar
Image generated using ChatGPT for illustration purpose



New York — the city that never sleeps, where power, money, and dreams collide. Yet in this global capital of capitalism, an unlikely figure has risen to power — Zohran Mamdani, the son of filmmaker Mira Nair and historian Mahmood Mamdani. His victory as New York's mayor has stunned America and inspired millions worldwide.

Who is Zohran Mamdani, and how did he win against the might of billionaires, political lobbies, and hate campaigns?

Mamdani is a politician of conviction — a man who speaks of justice, equality, and dignity for the working class in a city that glorifies wealth. He didn't win by distributing dollars, but by talking about why people remain poor and how the system must change. His victory has been called a “turning point in American democracy,” reminiscent of Jawaharlal Nehru's “tryst with destiny” in 1947 — a moment when a society decides to shed the old and embrace the new.

A Political Awakening in the City of Immigrants

Mamdani's win is more than just a political success; it's a moral statement. In the same country where Donald Trump built his politics on fear and division — especially targeting immigrants — Mamdani, an immigrant himself, won by appealing to hope. He stood for immigrants, workers, and renters, and promised to make the city livable again for ordinary people.

New York is home to people from over 150 countries. It is also a city of contradictions — immense wealth alongside staggering poverty. Mamdani's campaign asked a simple question: why does one of the richest cities in the world have so many people struggling to afford rent, education, or healthcare? His slogans were direct:

  • “No more rent hikes.”

  • “Free public transport.”

  • “Healthcare for all.”

These weren't utopian dreams. They were demands born out of everyday pain.

Fighting Billionaire Power and Hate Politics

The billionaire class united against him. They called him a “communist,” “anti-Israel,” even “dangerous.” Elon Musk mocked him online. Donald Trump went as far as threatening to cut federal funding to New York if Mamdani won. But New Yorkers — tired of political theater — stood by him.

What set Mamdani apart was his honesty. When his opponents tried to link him to terrorism, he smiled and kept talking about bus fares and teacher shortages. When accused of being “anti-Jewish,” he replied calmly:

“New York is home to Jews, Muslims, Christians, everyone. This city belongs to all of us.”

He didn't hide his Muslim identity, nor did he use it to divide. In a world where fear dominates politics, Mamdani's courage became his greatest strength.

The Making of a Global Leader

Mamdani's story is also a story of migration, resilience, and moral inheritance. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, was exiled from Uganda during Idi Amin's rule in 1972. His mother, Mira Nair, chronicled those immigrant struggles in Mississippi Masala and The Namesake. From that family emerged a leader who turned those experiences into political energy — a leader who knows what displacement feels like and what belonging truly means.

Lessons for India and the World

Ravish Kumar, the journalist who first brought this story to the Indian audience, notes how Mamdani's victory echoes far beyond America. He writes that while India's political discourse is trapped in caste and religion, Mamdani won by uniting people around issues that matter: education, rent, transport, and dignity.

In Bihar, for instance, politicians debate handouts instead of job creation. Mamdani's campaign offers a lesson — real change comes not from fear, but from trust, empathy, and clarity of purpose.

A Hopeful Future

Zohran Mamdani's win has become a symbol — proof that progressive politics isn't dead, even in an age of polarization. He defeated Trump-backed billionaires not with anger, but with ideas. He reignited hope among young voters and brought moral clarity back to public life.

In his victory speech, Mamdani said:

“Those hands that built this city, but were told they'd never touch power — today, the future is in their hands.”

That single line captures the essence of his journey — and perhaps, the essence of democracy itself.


Zohran Mamdani didn't just win an election. He reminded the world that even in the age of billionaires, people still matter.

Tags: Politics,Ravish Kumar,Hindi,Video,

Analysis of the HIRE Act’s Potential Impact on the Indian Economy

See All Articles on Politics/Finance/Layoffs
The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act is primarily a U.S.-focused legislative measure; however, its wide-ranging economic implications can extend to countries with significant economic and trade ties to the United States, such as India. Analyzing the potential impact of the HIRE Act on the Indian economy involves considering several key factors: foreign direct investment (FDI), bilateral trade relations, and labor market dynamics.

1. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

The HIRE Act, by stimulating employment and economic growth within the United States, can indirectly influence FDI flows. A robust U.S. economy may lead to increased investment from U.S. companies in foreign nations, including India. Conversely, U.S. businesses benefiting from tax incentives to hire domestically might reduce their investments abroad, potentially impacting sectors in India reliant on such investments. Understanding these dynamics is crucial, as FDI is a significant driver of economic growth and development in India, supporting infrastructure projects and the transfer of technology and expertise.

2. Bilateral Trade Relations

India-U.S. trade relations are a cornerstone of economic interaction between the two nations. The HIRE Act's focus on job creation and industrial growth can affect these relations in various ways. Increased economic activity in the U.S. might lead to higher demand for Indian exports, particularly in industries where India holds competitive advantages, such as IT services and pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, if U.S.-based companies become more self-sufficient or protectionist due to domestic economic incentives, this could pose a challenge to Indian exporters seeking to maintain or expand their market share in the U.S.

3. Labor Market Dynamics

While the HIRE Act is intended to enhance employment within the U.S., it also indirectly affects labor market conditions in countries like India. For example, by fostering greater collaboration through outsourcing and partnerships, Indian tech firms may find new opportunities to complement U.S. workforce demands. However, if domestic hiring incentives in the U.S. reduce outsourcing, there could be negative implications for Indian businesses heavily reliant on such contracts.

4. Economic Policies and Reforms

The HIRE Act's emphasis on incentivizing employment through fiscal measures could serve as a model for India as it navigates its own path toward economic recovery and growth. Policymakers in India may consider adapting similar strategies, particularly in sectors affected by rapid technological change and evolving global markets, to stimulate job creation and sustain economic momentum.

Conclusion

The HIRE Act's potential impact on the Indian economy is multifaceted, with implications spanning investment flows, trade dynamics, and employment strategies. While some effects may directly benefit the Indian economy through increased trade and FDI, others may pose challenges that require careful navigation by policymakers and business leaders. As both nations continue to engage in strategic economic dialogue, understanding these interactions will be key to sustaining mutually beneficial growth.
Tags: Politics,Finance,Layoffs,

Saturday, September 20, 2025

Trump’s Project Firewall: The Harshest Blow Yet to India’s IT Sector


See All Political News


Donald Trump has just delivered what may be the single biggest jolt to India’s IT sector in recent memory. A shock so severe that its aftershocks will be felt from Silicon Valley to Bengaluru, and from Patna to Pune.

The announcement came late Friday evening when the U.S. President signed an executive order creating a new immigration program under the name “Project Firewall.” Overnight, the dream of Indian engineers and students who looked to America as their land of opportunity has turned into a nightmare.


What Changed? From ₹6 Lakh to $100,000 a Year

Until recently, renewing an H-1B visa cost roughly ₹6 lakh (around $7,200). Under Trump’s new order, that figure skyrockets to $100,000 a year (over ₹83 lakh).

This is no minor policy tweak. It’s a financial wall designed to push foreign workers—most of them Indian—out of the U.S. tech ecosystem.

Companies aren’t going to foot such a massive bill for every employee. And if they do, they’ll simply slash salaries to recover the cost. The math is brutal: thousands of Indian engineers in the U.S. are staring at job losses, with many possibly being forced to return to India almost overnight.


Panic on Both Sides of the Ocean

The ripple effects were immediate:

  • Advisories went out inside American tech firms.

  • Lawyers were flooded with frantic calls.

  • Families back in India grew restless, unsure if their loved ones would even keep their jobs.

  • Engineers currently traveling outside the U.S. were told to return within 20 hours or risk being denied entry altogether.

What was once a steady stream of middle-class Indian families building better futures abroad has suddenly become a flood of anxiety.


The Politics of Labels

At the heart of this order lies something more insidious than just money.

The official White House memo justifying the hike brands the H-1B program as “abused” and accuses foreign workers of harming American jobs and even threatening national security.

Let’s be clear: most H-1B holders are Indian. For decades, they’ve been the backbone of U.S. tech firms, paying billions in taxes, boosting the housing market, funding schools, and keeping hospitals staffed. Yet today, they are being recast from talent to infiltrators.

It is the same language we’ve seen elsewhere—whether in U.S. politics around Mexican immigrants or in Indian politics around “infiltrators” closer to home. The playbook is the same: use fear to win votes.


A Failure of Indian Diplomacy

This is not happening in a vacuum.

In June 2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Washington and announced, to loud applause, that H-1B renewals would now be processed within the U.S., no longer requiring a trip back to India. Crowds cheered, “Modi, Modi.”

Fast forward to September 2025, and those same H-1B workers are staring down the steepest visa wall in history. What happened to that pilot project? Where is the promised relief?

India’s foreign policy, often showcased as a string of hugs, handshakes, and photo-ops, has been reduced to silence in the face of this crisis.


The Bigger Picture: Project Firewall

Trump’s choice of name isn’t accidental. In computing, a firewall blocks outsiders from entering your system. By calling this crackdown Project Firewall, the message is clear: keep Indian engineers out.

The comparison to his much-discussed “big, beautiful wall” with Mexico is unavoidable. The same metaphor, the same politics—only this time, aimed squarely at Indian talent.

And let’s not forget: Indians make up 72–73% of the entire H-1B pool. No community is hit harder.


The Human Cost

This is not just about policy or numbers.

It’s about:

  • Families who took out massive loans to send their children to U.S. universities, now left staring at closed doors.

  • Five hundred thousand Indian professionals currently on H-1B visas, half of whom could be forced to return.

  • Remittances worth $35 billion a year flowing from the U.S. to India, now at risk.

  • Entire neighborhoods in Bihar, Andhra, and Tamil Nadu where one U.S. paycheck supports multiple families.

The dream of global mobility is collapsing into the nightmare of sudden deportations and shrinking futures.


Can India Respond?

At the very least, India’s government should be holding press conferences, spelling out what this means for its citizens, and taking a strong diplomatic stand. Instead, there is silence.

When it comes to tariffs, sanctions, or defense deals, Washington speaks and New Delhi listens. When it comes to Indian engineers being labeled infiltrators, where is the outrage?

The truth is uncomfortable: foreign policy built on personal friendships and photo-ops was never real policy. It was always theater. And today, that theater is being exposed for what it is.


Conclusion: A Dark Day for India’s Engineers

For decades, ordinary Indian families sent their children to study and work abroad, believing hard work would bring upward mobility. That belief powered India’s IT boom and changed the fortunes of millions.

Now, those same families are being told to pack up and return. But the jobs, salaries, and opportunities that took them overseas simply do not exist in India.

This isn’t just a visa crisis. It is a dream crisis.

Project Firewall has revealed the fragility of India’s global standing and the vulnerability of its brightest minds. The question is: will India confront this reality—or once again drown it out with applause?

Tags: Indian Politics,Politics,Hindi,Video,

Friday, September 5, 2025

The Coming White-Collar Recession

See All Articles

Summary

- Today, we take a look at the improving outlook for the blue-collar workforce, which has struggled for decades. - In addition, the AI revolution has the potential to be more disruptive to the white collar workforce than any paradigm shift in U.S. history. - These trends could have substantial impacts on the economy, the job markets, housing, and commercial real estate in the quarters and years ahead. - We examine the potential ramifications of the shifting prospects for these two key job demographics in the paragraphs below. - Looking for a helping hand in the market? Members of The Biotech Forum get exclusive ideas and guidance to navigate any climate.
Today, we are going to time warp ourselves back 35 years. The year is 1990. The Berlin Wall had just fallen in November of the previous year. The long Cold War was rapidly coming to an end, and Americans were looking forward to spending the long-promised "peace dividend." Globalization was soon put on steroids as the Cold War came to a close. NAFTA was signed at the very beginning of 1994, an agreement Ross Perot stated would cause a "giant sucking sound" as manufacturing jobs fled the United States. Something that in retrospect, seems at least prescient. This globalization wave accelerated even further as China was welcomed to the World Trade Organization in late 2001, a few months after 09/11.
What followed was a huge reduction in manufacturing employment across the United States. Much of the Midwest and other regions of the country like Pennsylvania were turned into the Rust Belt. The loss of millions of relatively high-paying blue-collar jobs is one of many factors driving increasing wealth inequality over recent decades in the U.S. and has also been a factor in increasing political polarization in the country.
Well, it seems history is not without an appreciation for irony. An inflection point is on the horizon that few are discussing. The prospects for the blue-collar workforce appear to be improving. The new administration is quite focused on reshoring manufacturing back to the States. Towards that end it has implemented the biggest hike in tariffs on imports in generations.
This is resulting in a huge and much-needed surge of tariff revenues into the U.S. Treasury. In addition, a rash of huge multinational companies have announced significant expansions to plans to add manufacturing capacity in the United States in 2025. A partial list follows below.
In addition, hundreds of billions of dollars are being allocated to build massive AI Data Centers for the likes of Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN), Meta Platforms, Inc. (META), Alphabet Inc. (GOOG) (GOOGL) and Microsoft Corporation (MSFT). This is creating jobs for tens of thousands of positions for construction workers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, pipefitters, HVAC personnel, etc.
This huge construction boom should also significantly boost the economic prospects of states with access to low-cost and abundant natural gas supplies as this will be the primary source of delivering the massive amounts of electricity these facilities demand. This is why states like Texas, Pennsylvania and Louisiana have garnered huge new AI data center projects. This is also triggering a renaissance for the nuclear utility industry. A proposed new $25 billion AI data center in the panhandle of Texas could end up hosting the nation's largest nuclear energy site.
Then, there are large numbers of recent migrants who are leaving the country in 2025. Some 1.6 million of which have left the United States year to date, mostly via self-deportation. All things being equal, this should open up new blue-collar jobs in industries like home building, which has been heavily dependent on this labor source. These trends could provide a large boost to vocational education across the nation. In contrast, the prospects for the white-collar workforce are noticeably dimming. The AI Revolution has a high likelihood of displacing workers at a faster rate than any paradigm shift in history. If AI delivers the productivity improvements projected, it will result in millions and millions of job losses. In addition, almost all of these job reductions will happen in the white-collar workforce.
Among the jobs most likely to be reduced or eliminated are sales and customer service representatives, entry-level research and financial analysts, legal and office assistants and even software programmers. A recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York survey found that 6.1% of computer science grads are out of work as are 7.5% of computer engineering grads. These are among the highest unemployment rates for all college majors. For decades, much of the younger generation as well as displaced employees were told to "learn to code" to achieve job security. With the development of AI, that is no longer the case. It is now getting to the time of the year when corporate managements are starting to huddle to map out budgets and core priorities for 2026. How many of those planning sessions will be around major pushes to integrate more AI into operational and business processes? My guess is a high percentage, and those targeted productivity pushes will result in considerable job losses in 2026, in my opinion.
A recent small business blog survey offered up the following predictions (above). Another similar exercise in July had some of the following findings.
So, the $64,000 question for the economy and the markets is will new jobs be created fast enough to offset the massive job losses driven by AI in the years ahead? I am not one to doubt American ingenuity. However, it is hard for me to fathom new job creation being close to sufficient to replace job losses from AI in the years ahead if predictions come anywhere close to coming to fruition. That means the unemployment rate is likely to tick up significantly in the coming quarters. This is going to particularly impact the younger generations of white-collar workers given that AI will significantly reduce entry-level positions. And this is a generation already struggling with massive student loan debt, whose payments have recently been restarted after a four-year taxpayer hiatus. Already, student loan delinquency rates are surging, recently hitting 12.9% and credit scores for millions of individuals with student loans are falling.
Accelerating white collar job losses, falling credit scores and rising delinquency rates are hardly supportive of demand for large-ticket items like vehicles and discretionary travel. It is also another headwind for the rapidly deteriorating housing market which I covered again in an article earlier this week.
If white collar jobs are displaced by AI and they cannot be replaced at nearly the same pace, it could trigger an overall recession in 2026 or 2027. It also could be the death knell for many office properties, one of several sub-sectors of the CRE space that are already struggling mightily. Ref
Tags: Politics,Layoffs,Finance,Technology,

Thursday, September 4, 2025

Can the Elephant and the Dragon Dance Together?


See All Political News

Hello, this is Ravish Kumar. So, are India and China ready to dance together? Recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping remarked that the “elephant and the dragon can dance together.”

Now, in politics, the metaphor of dance has many shades. Sometimes, it means: who is dancing on whose tune? Who is pulling the strings? That kind of dance is unhealthy. The real dance worth celebrating is one where both partners appear equal—where the steps are in balance, where dignity and respect are intact.

In October 2024, Prime Minister Modi met Xi Jinping in Kazan, Russia. Later, he visited Beijing after seven years. Yet, the border tensions that erupted in Eastern Ladakh five years ago remain unresolved. Reports suggest that more than 50,000 soldiers remain stationed on both sides. Strikingly, the Prime Minister avoided speaking about the border issue directly. India rarely calls out China openly—be it about Doklam (2017) or Galwan (2020). Instead, we hear routine lines about “maintaining peace and stability” on the border. But is that enough?

Meanwhile, trade paints a very different picture. Since 2020, India’s dependency on Chinese imports has only grown. The trade deficit stands at nearly $100 billion. India buys, China sells. But what exactly does India produce that China must buy? The imbalance continues because India cannot yet find alternatives to Chinese products. This proves that trade flows smoothly even when strategic ties are strained.

The real question is: after the SCO meeting, has anything fundamentally changed between India and China? Is there any new sense of parity that makes it look like two equals preparing to dance gracefully, mesmerizing the world as the “elephant and dragon” twirl together?

Xi may invoke this poetic image, but his actual dance partner remains Pakistan. He pulls the strings there with ease. Russia, too, continues to openly call Pakistan a “traditional friend.” During the SCO summit, while Modi’s photo-ops with world leaders made headlines in India, pictures of Xi, Putin, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif told a parallel story.

Back home, pro-government media celebrated the summit as a triumph. But the truth is murkier. India refrains from naming China when it comes to terrorism, even though China continues to shield Pakistan in global forums. For instance, after the Pahalgam attack, India highlighted the “condemnation” of terrorism in joint statements as a victory. But in the same breath, terror attacks in Pakistan, like the Jafar Express bombing, were also condemned. Whose victory was that?

The contradictions run deep. Modi says India and China are “victims of terrorism.” But when exactly was China a victim? When has it suffered terror attacks like India? These vague equivalences only blur the truth.

And while Modi emphasizes “strategic autonomy” and insists relations should not be seen through a third country’s lens, the reality is clear: China won’t abandon Pakistan. India won’t name China. The stalemate continues.

All the while, optics dominate. Viral photos, hugs, and handshakes flood the headlines. Yet, significant absences remain unspoken. For instance, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar did not travel with the delegation—officially due to “health reasons.” But his absence from key bilateral talks with Xi and Putin was glaring. It reminded me of the 1990s when even a seriously ill Foreign Minister, Dinesh Singh, was flown in a wheelchair to Tehran to secure Iran’s support for India at the UN. That was diplomacy at work, beyond optics.

Today, however, diplomacy risks being reduced to photo opportunities. China pushes its dominance through platforms like the SCO, much like India once did with SAARC. But where is SAARC today? Forgotten.

The bottom line: if the elephant and the dragon must dance, the rhythm must come from trust, balance, and equality. A dance partner is not someone you control with your fingers but someone you move in harmony with. Xi Jinping may speak of such a dance, but is he really offering one? Or is he simply reminding India of an invitation while twirling Pakistan in the meantime?

Until India calls out the contradictions and demands real parity, the so-called “dance” risks remaining nothing more than a performance staged for the cameras.

Friday, August 8, 2025

Where does Indian education stand in comparison to the world?


See All Articles on Politics
Japan built a national character through education—so what are we doing?

Five countries, five stories, and one question: where does India stand before the world’s education systems?

A few days ago I was having a fascinating dialogue with AI (Grok) on education. There’s a special charm in discussing education with AI, and it felt good to see that while Grok and I were talking, millions were reading our chat, asking questions and offering suggestions on education. People were deeply curious to know what the world’s education systems look like, where they stand, how they perform—and where India fits in.

Keeping that curiosity in mind, today I’m starting a series: “The World’s Education Systems and India.” In the first episode—five countries, five stories, and one question: where does Indian education stand compared with the world? Let’s begin with Japan.

About 150 years ago, in 1872, Japan’s leaders passed a law that made it the government’s duty to educate every child. What they did in 1872, we in India legislated only in 2011 as the Right to Education Act. Japanese leaders were thinking about every child in 1872; we started thinking about it in 2011. That is why Japan’s education system made every citizen so strong that, even after the most devastating nuclear attack in history, the country rose rapidly. In barely 20–25 years, through its education, technology, cameras, cars, robots and research, Japan once again became the king of technology—while here, in the eighth decade of our independence, we still celebrate merely achieving a passing percentage. Isn’t that worth thinking about?

In Japanese schools children don’t learn “I”, they learn “we”. All learning begins with teamwork, responsibility and patriotism—not in textbooks but in daily routines. I was amazed to see there are no janitors; children themselves clean their classrooms, toilets and corridors. Thus Japan built a national character through education.

Next, Singapore, a country that turned education into its survival strategy. Singapore became independent from Malaysia in 1965—18 years after our independence. In a TV interview right after independence, its first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, broke down and cried. Why? Because Singapore had no land for farming, no potable water, no minerals, no natural resources, no money—conditions like the slums of Delhi or Mumbai. But the leader said, “We have nothing except our children. We will give our children such magnificent education that a new Singapore will rise on their strength.” And so it happened. From engineers to street-cleaners, everyone in Singapore today receives world-class education. The cleaner gets the same quality of training as the engineer. Whatever was necessary to give every Singaporean excellent education, the leaders did. Thanks to that education model, a country with zero resources is now home to the world’s highest per-capita income.

After Singapore, look at China—an education model that has made its mark on the global economy through sheer schooling. China is the world’s fastest-growing major economy; its businesses dominate world markets; its cities are the most modern. The secret lies in education. China’s system has only one goal: make every child hardworking. It says, “We don’t ask how talented a child is; we ask how hardworking he or she is.” Laziness has no place. Chinese report cards don’t just state marks; they also state how much effort the child put in. In India we ask, “What percentage did you get?” In China they ask, “How much effort did you put in for that percentage?” That, too, is printed on the report card.

Another unique aspect: China’s system makes parents work just as hard as the children. Every parent receives at least 10 messages a day from school—about effort, conduct, class involvement, daily performance. The mantra is: hard work is a lifestyle. As a result, Chinese graduates don’t queue for government jobs; they think about which global market they can conquer with their effort.

If China’s specialty is that its goods are found in every market, there is another country whose schools and colleges contain children from every nation—Canada. In Canadian schools, more than 100 languages are spoken; children come from every country, race, culture and religion. Canada’s education system does not fear this diversity; it treats it as an opportunity, not a problem. Parliament itself sets the goals: by which age every child must develop which competencies. While schools teach every global subject—as we do—they also develop leadership, presentation skills, communication, vision-building, strategic planning and community building—skills we relegate to “extra-curriculars.” In Canada, leadership is part of the core curriculum. That is why Canada is a global education leader today.

Finally, Finland—an education leader that has stood at number one for decades. What matters is not that Finland is number one, but how it has stayed there. In the 16th century, a Finnish rule stated a child was marriageable only if he could read certain religious texts himself. Education, then, was not for jobs or degrees but a prerequisite for entering family and social life. From the 16th century to 1947, Finland had a basic system with no clear direction. Then, in 1947, all political parties formed an all-party committee that held over 200 public meetings and created a new system that took Finland to the top. Key reforms: all private schools were made public; formal schooling starts only at age seven—before that, children only play and grow, no alphabet, no numbers. Even today, a seven-year-old in Finland plays and explores but does not learn ABC or 123. Instead, talents of thinking, understanding, speaking and playing are nurtured.

Another Finnish feature: most countries use school inspectors to check quality; Finland abolished that post. The government says, “Instead of spending on inspectors, we spend on teacher training—we trust our teachers.” But that trust is earned. Becoming a teacher in Finland is perhaps the hardest in the world. Getting into a teacher-training university is tougher than getting into IIT or IIM in India, and then there are five rigorous years of study.

Countries like Finland, Singapore, Canada and China rise through education. The question for us is: which model can India adopt? Can we trust our teachers? Can we invest in education? Can we end the inequality of private schools? These examples do not mean we must become Japan or copy Singapore. We are India; our needs and realities are unique. The country will change when education changes, and education will change when the thinking of our leaders changes. And if leaders won’t change their thinking, we must change our leaders. That is the duty of every Indian. We must elect leaders who will give our children the education we want for them. That is the purpose of this video. Jai Hind.

Monday, August 4, 2025

The Deafening Silence of Modi (Aug 2025)


See All Articles on Politics

The Deafening Silence: When Trump Called India a "Dead Economy" and Modi's Government Said Nothing

The words landed like a wrecking ball: "dead economy." Former US President Donald Trump, never known for diplomatic subtlety, didn't just critique India's economic policies; he delivered a brutal, public obituary. "They can take their dead economy down," he declared dismissively, lumping India with Russia in a sweeping condemnation during a campaign speech. Adding insult to injury, he quipped that perhaps one day, India might even buy oil from Pakistan – a remark dripping with sarcasm and geopolitical insensitivity, knowing full well the fraught history between the two nations.

This wasn't a minor policy disagreement. This was a direct, personal, and deeply humiliating attack on the economic standing of the world's fifth-largest economy. And the response from the government that tirelessly trumpets India's rise to becoming the "third largest economy"? Deafening silence.

This silence isn't just puzzling; it's alarming. It speaks volumes about the state of India's foreign policy and national self-respect under the current dispensation.

Beyond Tariffs: An Assault on Sovereignty and Dignity

Trump's rant wasn't confined to tariffs. While the 25% tariff announcement on certain Indian goods (effective August 1st) is a serious economic blow impacting exports, jobs, and sectors like pharmaceuticals, textiles, and electronics, his other comments crossed a critical line:

  1. The "Dead Economy" Slur: This isn't policy critique; it's a wholesale dismissal of India's economic reality and potential. It ignores growth metrics (however contested) and the sheer scale of the Indian market. It's an insult aimed at the nation.

  2. Sanctions for Dealing with Russia: Trump effectively threatened sanctions ("fines") on India for purchasing Russian oil and weapons, asserting US authority over India's sovereign right to choose its energy and defense partners. This blatant interference demands a robust rebuttal.

  3. The Pakistan Oil Jibe: The suggestion that India might buy oil from Pakistan, punctuated with sarcasm, wasn't innocent trade speculation. It was a calculated dig, exploiting historical tensions to belittle India. It questioned India's energy autonomy and geopolitical standing.

  4. "Noxious" Non-Tariff Barriers: Dismissing India's regulatory frameworks (like import licenses, customs checks) as "noxious" is an insult to the nation's administrative structures and its right to set its own trade rules.

The Government's Stunning Muteness

The government's reaction? Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal spoke in Parliament... but only about the tariffs and ongoing trade talks. The "dead economy" label? The sanctions threat? The Pakistan jibe? Ignored. The Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman? Silent. The External Affairs Minister, Jaishankar, known for sharp retorts to European queries on Russian oil? Mysteriously quiet. The Prime Minister? Invisible on the issue.

This silence is unprecedented. When China faced similar tariff threats or criticism, its Foreign Ministry issued swift, strong rebuttals. When Trump pressured Germany on Nord Stream, Merkel defended Germany's interests. Brazil's Lula openly challenged Trump's attempts to undermine their sovereignty. Yet, India, aspiring to be a global leader, offers only bureaucratic murmurs about "studying the impact" and "protecting national interests" – after the national dignity has been publicly trampled.

Selective Outrage and Political Theater

The silence becomes even more jarring when contrasted with the government's usual rhetoric. Ministers and the BJP machinery are quick to pounce on opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi for echoing concerns about the economy. When Gandhi noted Trump's "dead economy" remark reflected the ground reality (citing demonetization, GST, etc.), the BJP erupted in condemnation of him, not Trump.

This exposes a dangerous hypocrisy. Nationalism, fiercely brandished domestically against political opponents, evaporates when a foreign leader insults the nation. The "56-inch chest" seems to shrink in the face of Trump's bluster. Where are the fiery defences of "Bharat Mata's" honour now?

The Cost of Failed Foreign Policy and Personalised Diplomacy

Ravish Kumar's core argument resonates: India's foreign policy appears catastrophically adrift. What should be focused on securing national interests – protecting the economy, ensuring strategic autonomy, building strong alliances – seems subsumed by a focus on personal PR and projecting the Prime Minister's image. The much-hyped "bromance" with Trump, showcased in events like "Howdy Modi," now stands exposed as hollow theatrology.

This personalised diplomacy has yielded:

  • Humiliation: Enduring public insults without response.

  • Economic Vulnerability: Facing damaging tariffs with no clear counter-strategy.

  • Strategic Weakness: Appearing unable to defend sovereign decisions (like buying Russian oil) against US pressure, unlike China.

  • Damaged Credibility: The silence on Trump's insults makes the government's boasts about global standing ring hollow.

The Ghost of "Howdy Modi" and the Questions that Remain

The images of Modi sharing the stage with Trump in Houston, basking in chants of "Howdy Modi," now seem like a cruel joke. The "friend of India" turned accuser, calling its economy dead, while the Indian Prime Minister remains mute. The contrast is stark and deeply embarrassing for the nation.

Critical questions hang in the air, unanswered by the government's silence:

  1. Why the lack of immediate, unequivocal condemnation? Basic diplomatic protocol demands a response to such egregious insults.

  2. What leverage does Trump hold over Modi? The consistent silence suggests something beyond typical diplomatic friction.

  3. Is national dignity now negotiable? At what cost is the government pursuing its undefined "deal" with the US?

  4. Where is the strategic autonomy? Capitulating to threats of sanctions over sovereign energy choices is a sign of weakness, not strength.

  5. How will India welcome Trump if he visits for the Quad summit? Will the architect of the "dead economy" slur be feted with silver thalis after such an affront?

Conclusion: Silence is Not Strength

Trump's "dead economy" remark wasn't just an economic assessment; it was a grenade thrown at India's national pride and global standing. The Modi government's failure to pick it up and throw it back, its refusal to even loudly say "We reject this," is not strategic patience. It's a failure of nerve, a dereliction of duty, and a stark admission of the hollowness of its projected strongman image and the bankruptcy of its current foreign policy.

The cost of this silence isn't just measured in potential tariff impacts or diplomatic points lost. It's measured in the erosion of national self-respect and the dangerous signal it sends to the world: that India can be insulted with impunity. Until the government finds its voice and forcefully defends the nation's honour and interests, the label "dead economy" will resonate less as Trump's hyperbole and more as an epitaph for India's diplomatic spine. The silence is deafening, and it speaks of a profound national humiliation.