Daily Current Affairs

Main Vaapas Aaunga: A Masterclass in Audience-First Film Marketing

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Imtiaz Ali’s Main Vaapas Aaunga was declared dead on arrival by the trade. On its release day, June 12, the film grossed just about ₹1 crore at the box office. Three weeks later, by July 6, it had crossed ₹89 crore. Deduct taxes and trade share, add the Netflix, television and music deals already signed, and it should turn a healthy profit on its reported ₹70 crore budget. Trade has now labelled it a “hit” [citation:original text].

In Main Vaapas Aaunga’s success is a long overdue lesson in film marketing, the weakest link in the chain for the ₹22,000 crore movie business [citation:original text]. The film’s journey from a disastrous opening to a box office triumph is a case study in how to connect with an audience, trust the product, and use the power of word-of-mouth in the digital age.

The Template That Fails: How Marketing Became a Mere Checklist

Cut a trailer, a teaser, put it online, take prime hoardings in Mumbai and do some talent interviews. That is the template that every studio and production house has been following, blindly, for years. It doesn’t matter what the film is about, who it talks to, what genre it is, or what the star cast is. Main Vaapas Aaunga did that too. But when the first-day numbers came in, “We knew something had gone wrong,” says Shibashish Sarkar, group chief executive officer, Reliance Entertainment, and a partner in Mr Ali’s production firm, Window Seat Films [citation:original text].

This is the fundamental flaw in the current marketing ecosystem. Studios treat marketing as a checkbox exercise, a set of pre-determined tasks to be completed rather than a strategic effort to communicate the film’s core proposition to the right audience. The result is that films with unique stories often get lost in a sea of sameness, unable to distinguish themselves from the noise.

The Film That Refused to Die: A Story of Partition and Promise

Main Vaapas Aaunga tries to capture our sense of home—the one that is trapped in our memory, associated with a person, a place, a point in time, or all of them. Seventeen-year-old Keenu and Jiya’s love is just blossoming in Sargodha (Punjab) when Partition strikes. Punjab and Bengal are split into two parts. Keenu, a Sikh is forced to flee to newly independent India. At 95, when dementia has eaten away his memory, the only thing he holds on to is a promise he made to Jiya. Naseeruddin Shah as the 95-year-old Keenu Grewal and Vedang Raina as the 17-year-old one are brilliant. The film lingers in your head and heart, especially if, like me, you grew up in a Partition family [citation:original text].

The film’s subject matter—Partition, love, loss, memory, and the idea of home—is emotionally resonant and deeply personal. It is a story that connects with a large, often underserved, audience segment that is not typically targeted by standard marketing campaigns. In the 10-odd advance screenings for Partition veterans and others, people laughed, cried their hearts out and loved the film. Yet, its marketing had failed in its basic job — to communicate what the film was about [citation:original text].

The Turning Point: From Despair to Direct Engagement

In the normal course, the team would have simply curled up in misery. Making a film — good or bad — is extremely hard work, involving hundreds of people and at least two years from idea to release. When the audience rejects it, it is known to push makers into depression. And then there is the danger of theatres stopping the screenings after week one if footfalls don’t improve [citation:original text].

On the Friday evening of release, the team put its heads together. Mr Ali decided that he wanted to meet the audience. It was a good film; everyone who saw it loved it — the question was how to amplify the message. From that Saturday began the journey of Mr Ali, Mr Sarkar, and the entire cast. In the 26 days since, they have attended over 50 theatrical screenings across Indore, Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, among other cities. Mr Ali is part of some; Mr Raina or some other cast member is part of others [citation:original text].

Mr Ali’s interactions with the audience after the screenings, especially when people are emotionally overwhelmed and reach out to share their stories with him, are being shot by others in the theatres. They are being uploaded on various social media platforms and have now reached a level of virality not seen for something that is not engineered by a digital agency and paid for by the studio. Mr Sarkar says the company consciously did not get into it [citation:original text].

“This has never happened in my life. People have taken the lead in publicity and marketing and have been the ones to force other people into the theatres. Every day, the number of people in theatres and the collections have grown,” says Mr Ali [citation:original text].

Three Lessons for a Failing Industry

There are three lessons here for studio executives and communications people who offer blank looks when questioned on templatised marketing [citation:original text].

One, get your head out of the digital ghetto. The first rule of marketing is to know your consumer. The media used is a means of reaching the right people — not the marketing plan. There are 566 million Indians browsing the net. There is also a whole India out there that is still on TV or reading print, or simply waiting to be connected with physically, like Mr Ali did with audiences [citation:original text]. The team’s decision to physically attend screenings was a recognition that for a film like Main Vaapas Aaunga, the most powerful form of marketing is a personal, emotional connection. It was a leap of faith that paid off.

Two, have a clear proposition. Live music concerts (the equivalent of a theatrical release) are the fastest-growing part of the music business. A Coldplay or Diljit Dosanjh concert is clear about what it offers. That is what a movie’s poster, trailer, its whole communication should be. This is especially true if it doesn’t have a big star or is not part of a franchise to pull in the initial audience. The underlying condition — the film has to be good. If it isn’t, the best marketing can’t save it [citation:original text]. Main Vaapas Aaunga is a powerful reminder that the product is the ultimate determinant of success. The marketing can create awareness, but it cannot create conviction. If the film fails to deliver, the audience will not recommend it, and the marketing efforts will be wasted.

And three: trust the film, trust your instincts, innovate a bit. A good film, supported by good marketing usually delivers. Sitaare Zameen Par is a recent example [citation:original text]. The team’s decision to break the mould and try something unconventional is a lesson in trusting the product. They believed the film was good and that if they could get people to see it, the word would spread. They were right. The success of Main Vaapas Aaunga is a testament to the power of a good story and a strong emotional connection.

A Blueprint for the Future

Meanwhile, Mr Ali continues to attend screenings. The trade reckons Main Vaapas Aaunga will hold steady for another 4-6 weeks [citation:original text]. The film’s success is a watershed moment for the Indian film industry. It has proven that a movie can still be saved through sheer force of will, and that the most powerful marketing tool is a filmmaker’s genuine connection with the audience. It has also exposed the hollowness of the current marketing model, where studios spend millions on digital campaigns without ever really understanding who they are talking to. The film’s journey is a blueprint for the future of film marketing: a return to basics, a focus on storytelling, and a willingness to trust the audience. As Mr Ali put it, “We thought that we knew how to promote. But we didn’t. The audience rescued us. We are getting a second chance and we will learn hopefully what we have to do in terms of marketing. For movies, marketing is not only a business function but also an emotional one” [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What was the initial box office performance of Main Vaapas Aaunga, and what was its eventual trajectory?

The film grossed just about ₹1 crore on its release day, June 12, 2026. Three weeks later, by July 6, it had crossed ₹89 crore. The film has since been labelled a “hit” by the trade, and it is expected to hold steady for another 4-6 weeks [citation:original text].

2. What is the central theme of Main Vaapas Aaunga?

The film tries to capture our sense of home—the one that is trapped in our memory, associated with a person, a place, a point in time, or all of them. The story follows 17-year-old Keenu and Jiya, whose love is blossoming in Sargodha (Punjab) when Partition strikes, forcing Keenu to flee. The film explores the themes of love, loss, memory, and the longing for home, particularly through the experience of those who lived through Partition .

3. What was the key mistake in the film’s initial marketing campaign?

The initial marketing campaign followed the standard template of releasing a trailer, a teaser, putting it online, and taking prime hoardings. However, it failed to communicate what the film was actually about, leading to a disastrous opening. The marketing team did not tailor its strategy to the film’s emotional, niche subject matter [citation:original text].

4. What marketing strategy did the team employ to rescue the film?

The team, led by Imtiaz Ali, began attending theatrical screenings in person, engaging with audiences after the shows. They captured these emotional interactions and uploaded them to social media. These videos went viral, creating a powerful word-of-mouth campaign that drove people to theatres. The team did not use a digital agency to engineer this; it was an organic, audience-led movement [citation:original text].

5. What are the three key lessons for the film industry from Main Vaapas Aaunga‘s success?

The three lessons are: (1) get your head out of the “digital ghetto” and understand that physical connection with audiences is still powerful; (2) have a clear proposition for the film to communicate what it is about; and (3) trust the film, trust your instincts, and innovate. The film’s success proves that a good film, backed by good marketing, will eventually find its audience [citation:original text].

The Enduring Legacy of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee: Beyond Politics, An Institution Builder for a Resurgent India

By Gajendra Singh Shekhawat
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

History often remembers great leaders through the political battles they fought. Yet the most enduring contribution of statesmen is rarely confined to politics alone. Their real legacy lies in the institutions they create, the ideas they nurture and the values they leave behind for future generations. As the nation commemorates the 125th birth anniversary of Bharat Kesari Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, it is worth revisiting an aspect of his public life that deserves far wider attention: his lifelong commitment to institution building as the foundation of nation building .

Independent India did not emerge merely from a political struggle. It had to build universities capable of educating its citizens, research institutions that could advance scientific knowledge, industries that could generate economic self-reliance, cultural organisations that would preserve civilisational heritage, and public institutions that could uphold democratic values. Dr. Mookerjee understood early that a nation’s future depends not only on visionary leadership but also on strong institutions that outlast individual leaders and governments .

The Architect of Modern Educational Reform

His remarkable academic career reflected this conviction. Appointed the youngest Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta at the age of 33, he assumed office at a time when higher education was becoming central to India’s intellectual awakening. For him, universities were not merely places that produced graduates; they were institutions that shaped informed citizens capable of contributing responsibly to public life. Education, in his view, was inseparable from the larger task of nation building .

During his tenure as Vice-Chancellor from 1934 to 1938, Dr. Mookerjee introduced a series of transformative reforms that modernised the University of Calcutta and set new benchmarks for Indian higher education . Perhaps his most significant contribution was his decision to introduce Bengali as a medium of instruction, which was formally recognised through the University Act of 1935. He declared, “Though western education has imbibed in us a deep sense of patriotism, liberal outlook and political consciousness, I have not been able to discern any reflection of a clear national educational policy within it” .

He appointed Rabindranath Tagore as a “distinguished professor” in the department of Bengali, convincing the reluctant poet to accept the position. Tagore later observed that it was “extremely shameful and unfortunate” that Bengali was not the medium of instruction in a university of Bengal . Dr. Mookerjee’s vision extended beyond language; he introduced new subjects including military studies, archaeology, aeronautics, astronomy, and experimental psychology. He also established the Students Welfare department and introduced teacher training courses to enhance pedagogical quality .

His commitment to education went far beyond administrative reforms. As the Minister of Industry and Supply in the interim government, he played a pivotal role in laying the foundation for the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). The establishment of IIT Kharagpur in 1951, India’s first IIT, was a landmark achievement. Dr. Mookerjee believed that science and technology were the cornerstones of national development, stating, “The future of India lies in the hands of its scientists and engineers. We must build institutions that can harness the intellectual potential of our youth and equip them to tackle the challenges of a modern world” .

The Industrial Visionary: Building Self-Reliance

This vision found practical expression after Independence when Dr. Mookerjee became India’s first Minister for Industry and Supply. During those formative years, the newly independent nation faced the enormous challenge of creating an industrial base almost from scratch. Institutions such as the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and the Sindri Fertilizer Factory were established not merely as manufacturing units but as symbols of India’s determination to achieve technological competence and economic self-reliance. For Dr. Mookerjee, industrialisation was never an end in itself; it was an investment in national capability and collective confidence .

His commitment to scientific and technological advancement extended well beyond the university campus. As a member of the Court and Council of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, he contributed to strengthening one of India’s premier centres of scientific research. In 1947, he laid the foundation stone of the Department of Power Engineering, recognising that engineering education and technological capability would become indispensable to an independent India’s economic progress. Long before innovation became a central policy objective, he had recognised that scientific excellence and industrial development would determine the country’s long-term strength .

A Life of Compassion and Service

Institution building, however, requires more than physical infrastructure or administrative efficiency. It demands compassion, public spirit and a deep sense of moral responsibility. These qualities were evident during the Bengal famine of 1943, when Dr. Mookerjee devoted himself to organising large-scale relief efforts for those affected by one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies of the twentieth century . He set up the Bengal Relief Coordination Committee, and by November 1943, the provincial Hindu Mahasabha under his leadership operated 160 canteens serving 60,000 people daily across the province .

Following Partition, he worked extensively for the rehabilitation of displaced persons, recognising that national reconstruction involved healing human suffering as much as rebuilding institutions . His compassion for the distressed was also seen in October 1942 when he rushed to bring relief to the cyclone-hit people of Contai in Midnapore . He also extended assistance to the poet Kazi Nazrul Islam during a period of personal difficulty, reminding us that public leadership is often measured not only by major policy decisions but also by quiet acts of generosity .

The Cultural and Civilisational Diplomat

His public life also reflected a profound appreciation of India’s civilisational heritage. As President of the Maha Bodhi Society of India, he played an important role in strengthening India’s cultural and spiritual ties with Buddhist nations . He was “elected unanimously with universal approbation” and “proved to be the most energetic, resourceful and hardworking President we ever had” . He participated in welcoming the sacred relics of the Buddha’s chief disciples to India, recognising the enduring significance of civilisational diplomacy. Even today, India’s efforts to share these holy relics with countries such as Mongolia demonstrate how cultural heritage continues to strengthen international goodwill and deepen historical bonds .

The Constitutional Visionary

Dr. Mookerjee carried the same institutional outlook into the Constituent Assembly. Describing the framing of the Constitution as “a great responsibility” and “a solemn and sacred trust”, he underlined the moral obligations that accompany constitutional governance . He argued that the strength of the Constitution ultimately depends not only on its written provisions but also on the integrity of Parliament, the independence of public institutions, the rule of law and the civic responsibility of citizens. Constitutional democracy flourishes only when institutions command public trust and operate with integrity .

A Legacy for a Resurgent India

As India advances towards the goal of becoming a developed nation, Dr. Mookerjee’s vision offers an important reminder. Economic growth alone cannot define national progress. Lasting development requires sustained investment in education, scientific research, technological innovation, cultural preservation and institutions that inspire public confidence .

Roads, airports and factories are indispensable, but so are universities that encourage inquiry, laboratories that expand knowledge, museums that preserve heritage and public institutions that safeguard constitutional values. Institutions possess a remarkable quality: they outlive governments, political movements and even generations. They preserve accumulated knowledge, provide continuity amid change and enable societies to pursue long-term national goals. Leaders may shape history, but institutions sustain civilisation .

That perhaps is the most enduring lesson of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s public life. His legacy rests not merely in the offices he held or the debates in which he participated, but in his unwavering belief that strong institutions are the true custodians of a nation’s aspirations. As India continues its journey of development, strengthening those institutions that promote knowledge, scientific temper, cultural confidence and constitutional values would be the most meaningful tribute to his memory .

Q&A Section

1. What was Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s most significant contribution to education?

His most significant contribution was transforming the University of Calcutta as its youngest Vice-Chancellor, introducing Bengali as a medium of instruction, appointing Rabindranath Tagore as a distinguished professor, and establishing new subjects including military studies, archaeology, aeronautics, and experimental psychology. He also played a pivotal role in establishing IIT Kharagpur, India’s first IIT .

2. What role did Dr. Mookerjee play in India’s industrial development?

As India’s first Minister for Industry and Supply, he established key institutions such as the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, which were symbols of India’s determination to achieve technological competence and economic self-reliance. He also contributed to the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, and laid the foundation for the Department of Power Engineering in 1947 .

3. How did Dr. Mookerjee demonstrate his commitment to humanitarian causes?

During the Bengal famine of 1943, he organised large-scale relief efforts, setting up the Bengal Relief Coordination Committee. By November 1943, 160 canteens served 60,000 people daily across the province. He also worked extensively for the rehabilitation of displaced persons following Partition and provided assistance to the poet Kazi Nazrul Islam during personal difficulty .

4. What was Dr. Mookerjee’s connection to Buddhism and civilisational diplomacy?

As President of the Maha Bodhi Society of India, he emerged as one of India’s finest cultural ambassadors, strengthening India’s ties with Buddhist nations. He welcomed the sacred relics of the Buddha’s chief disciples to India and was recognised as one of the most energetic and resourceful presidents of the Society .

5. What is the enduring lesson from Dr. Mookerjee’s life for modern India?

The enduring lesson is that lasting national progress requires sustained investment in institutions—universities, research laboratories, museums, and public institutions that safeguard constitutional values. Institutions outlive governments and generations, preserve accumulated knowledge, and provide continuity amid change. His vision emphasises that economic growth alone cannot define national progress; it must be complemented by strong institutional foundations .

The Compassion Deficit: When Indifference Becomes the Norm

By Aditi Roy
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

We live in an age of extraordinary connectivity and unprecedented isolation. Never before have we been so aware of the suffering of others, and never before have we found so many ways to turn away from it. Images of hunger, displacement, war, and human despair reach us instantly, yet they rarely interrupt our lives for long. We scroll, pause briefly, and move on. Compassion, once considered a defining human virtue, now competes with distraction, fatigue, and self-preservation [citation:original text].

This erosion of compassion is not born of cruelty. Most people do not wish harm upon others. Rather, it grows from a quieter indifference – a learned emotional distance that allows us to function without being overwhelmed. In an age of relentless stimulation, caring deeply can feel exhausting. And so, almost imperceptibly, we begin to ration our concern [citation:original text].

The Meaning of Compassion: Beyond Sentiment

Yet compassion has never been optional. Across civilizations and moral traditions, it has been understood not as sentiment but as responsibility. It is among the oldest and most enduring moral ideals because it recognizes a simple truth: no human being flourishes alone [citation:original text].

The very word compassion reveals this deeper meaning. Derived from the Latin com (“with”) and pati (“to suffer”), it literally means “to suffer with.” It is more than pity, which merely observes another’s misfortune from a distance. Compassion invites us to share, however imperfectly, in another person’s suffering and to recognize that their pain has a moral claim upon us [citation:original text].

This also distinguishes compassion from empathy, two concepts often treated as interchangeable. Empathy enables us to understand or feel another person’s experience. Compassion goes a step further. It transforms understanding into the desire to relieve suffering. One may empathize with another’s grief and yet remain passive. Compassion asks a further question: What can I do to help? For this reason, psychologists increasingly distinguish empathy from compassion. While empathy alone can become emotionally draining, compassion channels emotional understanding into constructive action, making it more sustainable over time [citation:original text].

The Wisdom of Traditions

In Buddhism, compassion (karuna) arises from the recognition that suffering is universal. Every human being experiences fear, loss, illness, disappointment, and mortality. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly argued that compassion is not a luxury reserved for saints or monks but a necessity for human survival. “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion” [citation:original text]. His insight overturns the common assumption that compassion benefits only its recipient. By loosening the grip of self-centeredness, compassion enriches both the giver and the receiver, fostering inner peace that holds society together [citation:original text].

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who admired many aspects of Eastern thought, reached a remarkable conclusion. He argued that compassion is the sole basis of morality because it enables us to transcend our narrow self-interest and recognize the suffering of others. Without compassion, moral principles remain abstract; with it, ethics becomes lived experience [citation:original text].

Compassion occupies a similarly central place in the world’s great religious traditions. In Christianity, it lies at the heart of moral life, embodied in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where moral worth is measured not by belief but by response. In Islam, rahma (mercy) forms the moral foundation of faith, binding devotion to care for the vulnerable. Judaism grounds compassion in the idea of kindness, tzedakah (justice), and tikkun olam—the obligation to repair the world. Sikhism expresses compassion through seva, selfless service performed without expectation. In Hindu thought, particularly in the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, compassion emerges from the recognition of the divine in every human being [citation:original text].

Among Christian philosophers, Thomas Aquinas offered one of the most enduring reflections on compassion. He described mercy as heartfelt sorrow for another’s distress, impelling us to help if we can. For Aquinas, compassion is not a passive feeling but a virtue that moves us to act. He saw it as inseparable from justice, because justice without mercy becomes harsh, and mercy without justice becomes sentimentality [citation:original text].

The Cultural Erosion of Compassion

Yet in contemporary society, compassion is increasingly strained by what psychologists describe as compassion fatigue. Constant exposure to suffering – through twenty-four-hour news cycles, social media feeds, and endless messages of distress – can dull our moral responsiveness. We are not necessarily becoming more heartless; we are becoming emotionally overloaded. Withdrawal begins to feel like self-preservation [citation:original text].

Modern society also celebrates independence to such an extent that dependence itself is often regarded as failure. Productivity, competition, and personal achievement are praised, while vulnerability is quietly marginalized. The elderly, refugees, the poor, people living with disabilities, and those struggling with mental illness become invisible – not because we fail to notice them, but because acknowledging their suffering demands something of us [citation:original text].

More troubling still is the way suffering is so often explained away. We speak casually of personal failure, as though misfortune were evidence of moral deficiency. Those who struggle are blamed for lacking discipline, ambition, or resilience, while the social and economic structures that constrain their lives remain conveniently invisible. Responsibility is shifted from society to the individual, and inequality is reframed as personal failure rather than systemic injustice. Such reasoning is not wisdom; it is evasion [citation:original text].

We also invoke karma to explain the suffering of others. Yet karma, in its deeper philosophical sense, was never intended to absolve us of responsibility. It reminds us that actions have consequences – and that we, too, are implicated in the conditions that shape other people’s lives. To invoke karma as a justification for indifference is to empty it of its ethical meaning [citation:original text].

The Consequences of Indifference

When compassion becomes optional, injustice becomes tolerable. When suffering is rationalized, it loses its moral claim upon us. This is not merely a personal failing; it is a cultural one. A society that prizes autonomy while neglecting responsibility risks producing individuals who are free yet isolated, informed yet unmoved [citation:original text].

The erosion of compassion has real-world consequences. Research shows that declining empathy is linked to increased aggression, decreased altruism, and greater social polarization . In healthcare, compassion fatigue is a leading cause of burnout among clinicians, affecting the quality of care patients receive . In education, the narrowing of curricula to measurable outcomes often neglects the cultivation of moral and emotional development . In public policy, compassion is often seen as a political liability rather than a governing virtue. The result is a society that is more fragmented, more unequal, and less capable of addressing its most pressing challenges.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Compassion

Properly understood, compassion does not require us to carry the world’s pain upon our shoulders. It asks only that we refuse to look away. It is the courage to remain present when indifference would be easier and the recognition that our lives are profoundly interconnected [citation:original text].

Our humanity is measured less by what we accumulate than by what we are willing to give. Compassion draws us beyond ourselves and into genuine relationship. It restores moral depth in a world increasingly flattened by speed, competition, and self-interest [citation:original text].

In an age preoccupied with distraction, performance, and self-optimization, compassion becomes a quiet act of moral resistance. It insists that every human life possesses inherent dignity – not as an abstract ideal but as a lived reality demanding our response [citation:original text].

The challenge before us is therefore not simply to feel more deeply, but to live more courageously – to resist indifference, reject the comfort of distance, and allow another person’s suffering to make a moral claim upon us. Only then will compassion cease to be a noble sentiment and become a way of life. And only then will it recover its enduring power to humanize us all [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What is the difference between compassion and empathy?

Empathy enables us to understand or feel another person’s experience, while compassion goes a step further by transforming that understanding into the desire to relieve suffering. Empathy can become emotionally draining, whereas compassion channels emotional understanding into constructive action, making it more sustainable over time [citation:original text].

2. Why is compassion described as “not optional” in the article?

The article argues that compassion is not optional because it is among the oldest and most enduring moral ideals, recognized across civilizations and traditions. It is a responsibility, not merely a sentiment, because no human being flourishes alone. Without compassion, moral principles remain abstract; with it, ethics becomes lived experience [citation:original text].

3. What is “compassion fatigue,” and how does it affect society?

Compassion fatigue is the emotional exhaustion that results from constant exposure to others’ suffering, particularly through media and social media. It can dull our moral responsiveness and lead us to withdraw from engagement with suffering as a form of self-preservation. This creates a culture of indifference, where injustice becomes tolerable [citation:original text].

4. How does the article critique the modern tendency to blame individuals for their suffering?

The article argues that we often explain away suffering by blaming individuals for lacking discipline, ambition, or resilience, while ignoring the social and economic structures that constrain their lives. This shifts responsibility from society to the individual and reframes inequality as personal failure rather than systemic injustice, which is described as “evasion” rather than wisdom [citation:original text].

5. What is the path forward to reclaiming compassion?

The article calls for resisting indifference and rejecting the comfort of distance. Compassion does not require carrying the world’s pain, but it does require refusing to look away. It asks us to live more courageously, to allow another person’s suffering to make a moral claim upon us, and to recognize that our lives are profoundly interconnected. Only then can compassion become a way of life rather than a noble sentiment [citation:original text].

The “Justice” Rally and the Sectarian State: When Religious Might Meets Political Accountability

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Chanting “Don’t bend the law!” the rallyists themselves ignored Batas Pambansa No. 880, the Public Assembly Act of 1985, which requires rally organizers to apply for a permit five days before any mass mobilization [citation:original text]. With no permits or coordination with local authorities, no alternative routes were put in place, resulting in traffic chaos that trapped commuters and motorists for hours on Metro Manila’s main thoroughfare. It’s collateral damage that could have been avoided had the rally been held at the INC-owned Philippine Arena in Bulacan, a bigger venue located away from the more crowded city center [citation:original text].

The disruptive rally was meant to shield INC member Sen. Rodante Marcoleta from the impending filing of a plunder complaint by the Office of the Ombudsman. By his own very public admission, the senator acknowledged receiving ₱75 million from three private individuals before the election campaign period in 2025 [citation:original text]. Though the Commission on Elections cleared him because of a technicality, Marcoleta had failed to declare the amount in his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. The plunder charge covers even private funds given to a sitting public official, the Office of the Ombudsman maintained [citation:original text].

The Anatomy of a Surprise: When the Edsa Shrine Became a Political Stage

Such legal minutiae were, however, lost in the massive and unannounced mobilization that left authorities helpless to control the thousands suddenly swarming EDSA and INC buses that blocked the roads [citation:original text]. The surprise protest on June 30, 2026, caught both the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the public off guard. The PNP estimated that around 10,000 people had gathered at the People Power Monument by mid-morning . The Quezon City government had issued a permit for the rally, but only for the following day, with strict conditions that the activity be confined to White Plains Avenue and that no roads be blocked . The organizers’ failure to secure a permit for the first day was a clear violation of B.P. 880, which states that an application must be filed at least five working days in advance . The result was a gridlock that paralyzed a major artery of the capital, trapping commuters and highlighting the dilemma of a state that must balance constitutional rights with public order.

Holding the public hostage to its political agenda was clearly meant to remind authorities of the sect’s political reach and influence that it brazenly flexes through bloc voting [citation:original text]. Indeed, the Tuesday rally demonstrated how the INC can summon thousands at a moment’s notice and paint police authorities into a corner with sheer numbers. But why the kid-glove treatment of this belligerence when similar rallies by militant groups are often met with harsh measures and violent dispersal? Clearly, the message has gone through: touch us and face electoral reckoning in 2028 [citation:original text].

The call for “Transparency and Accountability,” however, rings hollow, given the sect’s history of supporting candidates later put on the dock for graft and other serious charges, from former Presidents Joseph Estrada and Rodrigo Duterte to Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla [citation:original text]. This was not the first time the INC has used its formidable numbers to pressure the government. In 2015, a massive five-day protest effectively forced the Department of Justice to drop cases against the church’s leadership .

The Senator, the Ombudsman, and the Specter of Plunder

And there lies the bigger irony of this affair. While the rally found issue on how others involved in the flood control mess have escaped judicial scrutiny, it also presented Marcoleta as a hero, with INC spokesperson Edwil Zabala disingenuously crediting the senator for leading the expose on flood control anomalies as chair—very briefly—of the blue ribbon committee [citation:original text].

But the “transparency” bid fails spectacularly given Marcoleta’s opaque accusations during the Senate hearing on the flood control issue. His vigorous defense of the Dicaya couple—the controversial contractors behind some of the biggest government contracts—soon unearthed his wife’s connection to the insurance company providing bond coverage for Dicaya projects. Marcoleta also presented a dubious witness, Marine Sgt. Orly Guteya, who claimed to have delivered luggage of cash to administration officials complicit in flood control deals but who promptly disappeared before he could be questioned [citation:original text].

Marcoleta said the plunder charges are meant to prevent him from participating in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte [citation:original text]. Recall that the sect held a similar Luneta rally in 2025 in a bid to stop the then-looming impeachment proceedings against the Vice President over her questionable use of ₱125 million in confidential funds [citation:original text].

The Office of the Ombudsman, led by Jesus Crispin Remulla, remained steadfast. The plunder case, a non-bailable offense, would proceed regardless of the protest . The Ombudsman argued that the case was about accountability, not politics . The Palace, through Press Officer Claire Castro, reiterated that the administration respects the separation of powers and that Marcoleta would have his day in court .

An Ironic Legacy

The INC’s rally for “justice” was a powerful display of the church’s ability to mobilize its members and project its influence. Yet, it was also a stark reminder of the transactional nature of its political involvement. The rallyists demanded transparency and accountability while defending a senator who failed to declare millions in campaign funds. They cried “Don’t bend the law!” while breaking it themselves. The incident exposes a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the INC’s political strategy: it wants to be treated as a sacred institution above the law, while actively engaging in the messy, profane business of politics. The state, caught between its constitutional obligation to uphold the law and the political risk of challenging a powerful, vote-rich religious group, has often chosen the path of least resistance. Whether this time is different remains to be seen.

Q&A Section

1. Why did the Iglesia ni Cristo hold a massive rally on EDSA?

The INC held the rally to support Senator Rodante Marcoleta, an INC member, who was facing a plunder complaint over undeclared campaign contributions. The church framed the issue as “selective justice” and a “distortion of the law,” arguing that Marcoleta was being targeted for his efforts to expose corruption in government flood control projects [citation:original text]. The rally was also an implicit show of force, reminding authorities of the INC’s political influence .

2. What was the legal basis for the Office of the Ombudsman’s complaint against Senator Marcoleta?

The Ombudsman filed plunder charges against Marcoleta after he admitted receiving ₱75 million in campaign donations from three individuals before the 2025 elections [citation:original text]. The crime of plunder requires the accumulation of at least ₱50 million in ill-gotten wealth . Investigators argued that Marcoleta failed to declare these donations in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE), forming the basis for the plunder and indirect bribery charges . The Comelec had earlier cleared him on a technicality, but the Ombudsman is an independent body [citation:original text].

3. What is the Public Assembly Act of 1985 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880), and how was it violated?

Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 is the Philippine law that governs public assemblies . It requires rally organizers to secure a written permit from the local mayor at least five working days before the event . The INC violated this law by holding the initial rally on June 30 without the required permit, causing massive traffic jams . While the Quezon City government issued a permit for the following days, the initial protest was unlawful and caused significant public disruption .

4. What was President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s response to the INC rally?

President Marcos expressed confidence that the INC rally would remain peaceful, citing the church’s history of orderly demonstrations . However, he also warned of possible attempts by outside groups to infiltrate and provoke unrest . He rejected allegations of “selective justice” . Malacañang later stated that Marcoleta would be allowed to defend himself in court and that the executive branch would not interfere with the judicial process .

5. What is the historical significance of the INC’s political influence in the Philippines?

The Iglesia ni Cristo has long been a significant political force due to its practice of “bloc voting,” where members are instructed to vote for endorsed candidates . This makes its endorsement highly sought after by candidates . Historical exit polls show the INC vote is largely cohesive . The church has been known to use its mass mobilization power to pressure the government, as seen in a 2015 protest that successfully influenced the Department of Justice . This influence makes it a formidable actor in Philippine politics, often playing a kingmaker role .

Politics and AI: When Democracy Becomes the Greatest Obstacle to Innovation

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Artificial intelligence is often portrayed as an unstoppable technological revolution, driven by relentless innovation and vast pools of capital. Yet the greatest obstacle to its future may not be a technical limitation or a financial bubble. It may be democracy itself. Across advanced economies, particularly in the United States, public resistance to AI is emerging as a powerful political force capable of slowing, reshaping or even derailing the technology’s trajectory .

The reasons extend far beyond fears of machines replacing human workers. AI is no longer an invisible piece of software operating in distant laboratories. It demands sprawling data centres that consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, transform local landscapes and place new pressures on ageing power grids. Communities are beginning to ask why they should bear these costs when the economic rewards appear concentrated among a handful of technology companies and investors. The familiar promise that technological progress eventually benefits everyone is no longer accepted without question .

The Data Center Backlash: A Proxy War for AI’s Future

The flashpoint has been data centers, the multi-football field-sized computing facilities that power AI. Fundamentally, this is a fight about power and whether it will be exercised by democratic institutions or those that control the infrastructure of AI . Local citizen outrage has taken its toll. The first three months of 2026 saw local data center opposition block or delay 75 projects worth $130 billion in planned construction, according to Data Center Watch. This was roughly the same number of projects affected as in all 12 months of 2025 .

AI mega centers have become the symbol of citizen frustration about AI. As the most visible manifestation of AI, they have become the proxy for citizen feedback on AI itself. The debate over land use also represents the crystallization of broader public concern about AI’s effect on American lives and livelihood. “Concerns over data centers relate to broader worries that the rapid expansion of AI could upend the labor market,” Reuters reported. “Americans don’t know how to fight AI. So they’re fighting data centers,” a Vox headline explained .

As AI leaps from technology to politics, the central question becomes who is in charge: democratic structures or autocratic executives . The first decades of the digital era saw a small handful of executives make decisions that affected the rest of us. Those same companies are the primary movers making the rules for the AI era as well. Long before the public was introduced to large language models and chatbots, early machine intelligence algorithms manipulated online services to optimize for engagement. The result harvested unprecedented amounts of personal information, amplified misinformation, and concentrated decisionmaking power in the hands of a few. These companies became pseudo-governments to make their own rules in their own self-interest .

The Erosion of Trust: What the Public Really Thinks

Public concerns about AI are not abstract; they are deeply rooted in questions of fairness, accountability, and democratic legitimacy. Research from the Ada Lovelace Institute shows that 91% of the UK public feel it is important that AI systems are developed and used in ways that treat people fairly. They want this to be prioritized over economic gains, speed of innovation and international competition when presented with trade-offs .

Moreover, the public feel disenfranchised and excluded from AI decision-making. 84% fear that, when regulating AI, the government will prioritise its partnerships with large technology companies over the public interest . This sense of exclusion is reinforced by low trust in both government and technology companies. Over half of the UK public (51%) say they do not trust large technology companies to act in the public’s interest, and 59% say they do not trust the government to act in the public’s interest .

This widespread distrust underscores the importance of independent oversight and governance mechanisms. The public support independent regulation, with 89% backing an independent regulator for AI, equipped with enforcement powers . There is also strong support (72%) for laws and regulation on AI—an increase of ten percentage points from 2022/23 .

The Governance Gap: A “Failure by Success” Dynamic

The integration of AI into public administration is accelerating, driven by the promise of greater efficiency and responsiveness. Yet this adoption introduces what scholars describe as a “delegation problem”—a fundamental tension between the benefits of automation and the erosion of democratic control .

This dynamic can lead to a “failure-by-success” scenario, where early functional gains obscure longer-term risks to democratic legitimacy . Research shows that while highlighting efficiency gains initially boosts trust, it simultaneously reduces citizens’ perceived control. When the structural risks of AI delegation—such as lack of assessability, irreversible dependencies, and absence of contestability—come to the foreground, institutional trust and perceived control both drop sharply .

The implication is clear: the hidden costs of AI adoption significantly shape public attitudes. Policymakers must recognize the inherent tensions in delegating public tasks to AI systems and communicate transparently about how these tensions are being addressed. Failing to do so risks not only eroding public support for AI use, but also diminishing trust in government more broadly .

The Political Economy of AI: Democracy’s Reckoning

The political issues are bipartisan. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley warns, “We are watching a handful of companies assemble a concentration of capital, information, and political power without precedent in the American experience.” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoes, “Today’s big tech companies have too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy” .

Arriving from opposite ends of the political spectrum, both senators identify the emerging political question for the election and beyond: How much economic, informational, and political power should be concentrated in a small number of technology firms?  As the Economist distilled the issue into a single question: “Five men control AI. Who controls them?” That is a question that will now be put to the people. The debate over AI has become a referendum on democratic accountability itself .

Conclusion: The Decisive Question

Excessively restrictive regulation could undermine productivity growth and weaken the competitive position of democratic economies at a time when technological leadership carries strategic significance. China continues to invest aggressively in artificial intelligence, viewing AI not merely as a commercial opportunity but as a pillar of national power . Yet the opposite mistake would be equally damaging. Ignoring public concerns in the name of innovation would only deepen distrust and invite an even stronger political backlash .

Large-scale technological change has always required public legitimacy. That legitimacy cannot be sustained if communities see rising energy bills, disappearing jobs and expanding corporate profits without corresponding social benefits . Innovation succeeds not when governments simply step aside, but when societies believe its rewards are broadly distributed. The future of artificial intelligence will therefore be determined as much in legislatures, courts and town halls as in research laboratories. The decisive question is no longer whether AI can transform economies. It is whether democratic societies can build enough public trust to allow that transformation to endure .

Q&A Section

1. Why are local communities protesting against AI data centers?

Local communities are protesting against AI data centers because they consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, transform local landscapes, and place new pressures on ageing power grids. Residents question why they should bear these costs when the economic rewards appear concentrated among a handful of technology companies and investors. The debate over data centers has become a proxy for broader public anxiety about AI’s effect on jobs and daily life .

2. What does the public want from AI regulation?

The public prioritises fairness, positive social impacts, and safety. 91% of the UK public feel it is important that AI systems are developed and used in ways that treat people fairly . There is strong support (89%) for an independent regulator for AI, equipped with enforcement powers. The public also want mechanisms such as independent standards, transparency reporting, and top-down accountability to ensure effective monitoring of AI systems .

3. What is the “failure-by-success” dynamic in AI governance?

The “failure-by-success” dynamic refers to a scenario where early functional gains from AI deployment—such as increased efficiency—obscure longer-term risks to democratic legitimacy. Research shows that while highlighting efficiency gains initially boosts trust, it simultaneously reduces citizens’ perceived control. When the structural risks of AI delegation come to the foreground, institutional trust and perceived control both drop sharply. This suggests that even successful AI implementation may generate system-undermining attitudes .

4. What are the bipartisan political concerns about AI in the US?

Both Republican and Democratic senators have expressed concerns about the concentration of economic, informational, and political power in a small number of technology firms. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley warns of “a handful of companies assemble a concentration of capital, information, and political power without precedent in the American experience.” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren argues that “today’s big tech companies have too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy” .

5. What is the decisive question for the future of AI?

The decisive question is no longer whether AI can transform economies. It is whether democratic societies can build enough public trust to allow that transformation to endure. Innovation succeeds not when governments simply step aside, but when societies believe its rewards are broadly distributed. The future of AI will be determined as much in legislatures, courts and town halls as in research laboratories .

Another Protest, a Similar Script: The Cockroach Janta Party and the Ghost of Anna Hazare

By Harsha Kakar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

A successful film will always have a sequel, with directors hoping that the public responds in a similar manner as with the original. The same can be true for politics also. A sequel to the Anna Hazare protest is currently on at Jantar Mantar led by the Cockroach Janta Party with organisers making every effort to reach the destination [citation:original text].

The second tenure of the UPA government under Manmohan Singh was rocked by a collection of scandals, including Commonwealth Games and the 2G scandal. This opened doors for Anna Hazare, a Magsaysay Award winner, to launch his India Against Corruption campaign in 2011 [citation:original text]. On 5 April 2011, Hazare began an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, demanding the passage of a strong Lok Pal bill. Arvind Kejriwal was his associate, coordinating with Prashant Bhushan and his father, former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, in drafting the initial bill [citation:original text].

The 2011 Playbook: A Movement That Changed Indian Politics

Hazare, an ex-army man, was already well known for his Gandhian philosophy and for transforming his drought-prone village, Ralegan Siddhi, into a self-sufficient model of village development using watershed management and water conservation [citation:original text]. On 9 April, fearing the protests would garner national support if Hazare’s health deteriorated, the government bent and formed a joint committee, including Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi, to draft the bill.

On 16 August, unhappy with the draft, Hazare announced another fast. Just before its commencement, the police arrested him and his close associates—a grave mistake that resulted in protests across the country. Hazare was released and permitted to fast at the Ram Lila Maidan, which he did till 28 August, when the government bent again and passed legislation incorporating key portions of the Lok Pal bill [citation:original text].

Kejriwal had convinced Hazare to launch this second protest to exploit public anger against corruption. He already had political ambitions and had formed a core group, who subsequently became founding members of the Aam Aadmi Party. This led to differences between Hazare and Kejriwal; while Hazare preferred an apolitical approach, Kejriwal was seeking to enter politics. Thus, on 2 October 2012, Kejriwal launched his Aam Aadmi Party. The rest is history [citation:original text].

The 2026 Sequel: The Cockroach Janta Party and a Similar Script

The Cockroach protest, ongoing in Jantar Mantar, is following an almost similar script. Here Sonam Wangchuk, also a Magsaysay Award winner, is playing the role of Hazare [citation:original text]. Wangchuk came to the protest site straight from a visit to Switzerland, where he had announced his decision to fast. Whom he met there is unknown [citation:original text]. Wangchuk is known for his stand on the environment and the rights of Ladakhis. He was arrested in September last year under the National Security Act for instigating violent protests and jailed in Jodhpur. After appeals by his family and court orders, he was released in March this year [citation:original text].

Wangchuk had been demanding that Ladakh be separated from J&K. When it was made a UT in August 2019, he celebrated. Subsequently, he changed tack and began insisting on provisions under the sixth schedule and statehood for Ladakh. His protests turned violent and he was arrested. His NGO, Students Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), was flagged for ‘serious financial irregularities,’ and its Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) licence was cancelled [citation:original text]. The government accused SECMOL of violations including depositing locally generated funds into its FCRA account, diverting funds for impermissible activities like studying the country’s sovereignty, and failing to deposit foreign funds in the designated account .

Abhijeet Dipke, playing the role of Arvind Kejriwal, is a digital strategist who worked on meme-based campaigns for the AAP in the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections [citation:original text]. He was pursuing his masters in journalism from Boston University when he saw an opportunity that emerged when the Chief Justice of India termed unemployed youth who targeted the system as ‘Cockroaches’. He founded the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ online, which immediately gained traction with over 25 million followers on Instagram within days [citation:original text]. Like Kejriwal, he too claims to have left behind a lucrative career to change the system, by leading protests against the education minister for the NEET paper leak [citation:original text]. As of July 2026, the CJP is not a registered political party with the Election Commission .

The Funding: A Different Model, Similar Ambiguity

The funding model of the CJP differs from the 2011 movement but raises similar questions about transparency. CJP says it is not relying on one central fund; instead, it claims the movement is being supported through crowdfunding and voluntary public contributions . Many supporters sponsor whatever the protest needs on a particular day, such as meals, drinking water or other essential supplies . Founder Abhijeet Dipke has said the group declined a ₹50,000 cash donation to avoid depending on large individual contributions . CJP leaders say supporters directly pay for specific needs rather than donating money to a central fund, and according to one report, dozens of food delivery riders were seen arriving with meals ordered by supporters from cities such as Bengaluru, Mumbai and Delhi .

The movement has not disclosed its total daily expenditure or overall budget. Unlike the 2011 movement, which collected donations through the Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF) and maintained a bank account, the CJP does not even have a bank account . No government agency is auditing CJP’s finances because it is not a registered political party . The closest the movement came to public scrutiny was over a letter issued by RJD MP Manoj Jha that helped CJP book the Constitution Club for a press conference, which triggered speculation that an Opposition party was backing the protest . Both Manoj Jha and CJP denied this, with Jha saying he only helped secure the venue .

The Government’s Response: A Different Playbook

When Hazare began his protests, there was some support from opposition political parties, which vanished with the emergence of Kejriwal and AAP. This time, aware of a similar agenda, there is no support from any political party, barring the CPI [citation:original text]. Neither is the government of the day, unlike the UPA government of 2011, playing along by breaking the protests or arresting those involved. The identity check of participants is itself a stumbling block and reducing supporters [citation:original text].

The BJP government has handled major protests during its tenure, including farmers and Shaheen Bagh, and hence knows that giving them undue importance or firmly imposing law and order would play into the hands of protestors [citation:original text]. It is maintaining a distance, letting it continue, monitoring participation and investigating its funding. This is adding to frustration of the organisers as the playbook designed by those funding it is not being implemented [citation:original text].

Currently, the organisers continue spreading messages on social media, objecting to police action, only to be countered by official police handles. They are hoping to garner support and create an environment for the launch of another political party akin to AAP. This has not happened [citation:original text]. The political context is fundamentally different: while the UPA government in 2011 was weak and scandal-ridden, the Modi government has governed India for over a decade and has weathered repeated waves of mobilisation .

If these protests fail, Dipke’s political dreams will come crashing down. Hence, he is banking on Wangchuk’s hunger strike. How long the fast of Wangchuk continues, whether authorities are forced to intervene, and if the government action garners additional support, is to be seen. Currently, it appears to be another protest running out of time and backing. The nation is watching to see if the sequel to Anna Hazare will be as successful as the original [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. Who is Abhijeet Dipke and how did the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) begin?
Abhijeet Dipke is a 30-year-old digital strategist who worked on meme-based campaigns for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He founded the CJP as a satirical online movement after Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant compared unemployed youth to “cockroaches” . The movement quickly gained over 25 million Instagram followers and evolved into a nationwide protest demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over exam paper leaks .

2. How does the CJP protest compare to the Anna Hazare movement of 2011?
Both movements feature a Magsaysay Award-winning activist—Anna Hazare in 2011 and Sonam Wangchuk in 2026—on hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, supported by a younger organiser—Arvind Kejriwal then and Abhijeet Dipke now [citation:original text]. However, the political context differs: the UPA government in 2011 was weak and scandal-ridden, while the current BJP government has weathered many protests and is not engaging in the same way .

3. How is the CJP protest funded?
The CJP is not a registered political party and does not have a bank account . It claims to be funded through crowdfunding and voluntary public contributions, with supporters directly sponsoring daily needs like meals and water rather than donating cash . The movement has not disclosed its total daily expenditure or overall budget. Unlike the 2011 movement, which used the Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF) to collect donations, the CJP’s finances are not audited by any government agency .

4. What happened to Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, SECMOL?
The government cancelled the FCRA licence of Wangchuk’s NGO, Students Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), citing alleged violations including depositing locally generated funds into its FCRA account, diverting funds for impermissible activities like studying “national sovereignty,” and failing to deposit foreign funds in the designated account . Wangchuk’s other organisation, Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh (HIAL), was also under CBI inquiry for similar FCRA violations .

5. What is the government’s response to the CJP protests?
Unlike the UPA government in 2011, the BJP government is maintaining a distance from the protests, neither breaking them nor arresting the organisers, and is monitoring participation and investigating funding [citation:original text]. When thousands of protesters marched to Parliament on July 20, police used tear gas and batons, injuring nearly 180 people . The government has held talks with CJP leaders but has not conceded to the demand for Pradhan’s resignation .

Bridging the Aspiration Gap: India’s Youth, the Demographic Dividend, and the Crisis of Unmet Expectations

By Siddharth Roy
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

India is frequently celebrated as the world’s youngest major democracy. With more than half of its population below the age of thirty, the country possesses a demographic advantage that many developed economies can only envy. For years, this youthful population has been viewed as a source of economic dynamism, social innovation and political renewal. Yet beneath the optimistic rhetoric surrounding India’s demographic dividend lies a growing unease. Across cities, towns and villages, many young Indians are confronting a widening gap between aspiration and opportunity. It is a disconnect that carries implications not only for economic growth but also for the health of India’s democracy .

The aspirations of India’s youth have undergone a profound transformation over the past two decades. Expanded access to education, rapid digitalisation and unprecedented exposure to global ideas have reshaped expectations. Today’s young Indians are more connected, informed and ambitious than any previous generation. They have grown up in an era that promised mobility through education, prosperity through economic growth and empowerment through technology .

The Rise of Aspirations and the Reality of the Labour Market

Social media platforms have further expanded horizons. A student in a small town can now observe lifestyles, career trajectories and opportunities across the world in real time. Success stories circulate widely, creating both inspiration and expectation. Education is increasingly viewed not merely as a means of personal development but as an investment that should lead to meaningful employment and upward mobility . However, aspirations have risen faster than opportunities.

India remains one of the fastest-growing major economies, but economic growth alone does not guarantee broad-based employment. Many young people find themselves navigating a labour market characterised by intense competition, limited job security and skill mismatches. While sectors such as technology, finance and digital services have created new opportunities, these gains have not been distributed evenly. For millions of graduates, the transition from education to employment remains uncertain and often frustrating .

The challenge extends beyond unemployment statistics. Underemployment, precarious work and stagnant wages are equally significant concerns. Many young workers are employed in positions that do not fully utilise their qualifications or provide adequate economic security. Others cycle between temporary jobs, competitive examinations and skill-training programmes without achieving stable career outcomes .

The Education-Employment Paradox

Education, long regarded as the principal pathway to advancement, is itself under scrutiny. Enrolment rates have improved significantly, and higher education has expanded rapidly. Yet concerns regarding quality, employability and relevance persist. Employers frequently report difficulties in finding candidates with the required skills, while graduates struggle to secure suitable employment. The result is a paradox in which educational attainment increases but economic outcomes remain uncertain .

A study by the Centre for Sustainable Employment at Azim Premji University found that over 60% of graduates in India are “unemployable” due to skill deficits, despite holding degrees. The rapid expansion of higher education has not been matched by improvements in quality. Many institutions fail to provide practical, industry-relevant skills, leaving graduates ill-prepared for the job market. At the same time, the rise of automation and artificial intelligence is disrupting traditional career paths, creating new skill requirements and rendering some existing qualifications obsolete.

The Recurring Examination Crisis

The recurring controversies surrounding recruitment examinations and public-sector vacancies have amplified frustration. In a country where government jobs continue to symbolize stability and social mobility, delays, cancellations and allegations of irregularities often generate widespread dissatisfaction. Such episodes are not merely administrative failures; they affect public trust in institutions and shape perceptions of fairness .

The NEET-UG 2026 exam cancellation and the subsequent protests by the Cockroach Janta Party are emblematic of this crisis. The leak of a national examination paper, affecting around 2 million students, was not an isolated incident. Over the past decade, test papers have been leaked in over 150 different competitive examinations held in India. Only two of these cases led to convictions; most are either trapped in legal quicksand or have hit a dead end. These failures are deeply damaging to public confidence, as the sanctity of India’s high-stakes examination system—a symbol of meritocracy in a country divided by caste and class—has been broken.

The Mental Health and Social Consequences

This disconnect has broader social consequences. Young people who feel excluded from opportunities are more likely to experience anxiety, frustration and alienation. Mental health concerns among students and young professionals have received increasing attention in recent years. The pressures associated with competitive examinations, employment uncertainty and social expectations can be immense. Yet public conversations about youth well-being often remain overshadowed by purely economic discussions .

The NEET exam controversy has been linked to about a dozen student suicides. Families make enormous financial and emotional sacrifices because a degree or a competitive examination is still seen as the main pathway towards a secure middle-class life. That contract is now under strain. When a public exam paper is leaked, cancelled, incorrectly graded or delayed, students see it as a theft of time and, more importantly, of a bright future they were promised.

The Democratic Implications

The political implications of youth disillusionment deserve equal attention. Democracies derive strength from citizen participation and trust in institutions. Young people who believe that institutions are responsive to their concerns are more likely to engage constructively in civic life. Conversely, prolonged experiences of exclusion or disappointment can foster cynicism and disengagement .

India’s youth are not apathetic; they are increasingly vocal and politically aware. Digital platforms have created new avenues for expression, mobilisation and debate. Young citizens participate actively in discussions on governance, education, employment, climate change and social justice. They are willing to question authority and demand accountability. This engagement is a sign of democratic vitality. Yet there is also a risk that unmet expectations can produce disillusionment rather than empowerment. When aspirations consistently encounter structural barriers, frustration may manifest in polarisation, distrust or withdrawal from democratic processes .

A Multidimensional Response

Addressing these concerns requires a multidimensional approach. Economic policy must prioritise employment-intensive growth alongside productivity enhancement. Skill-development initiatives should be aligned more closely with evolving labour-market requirements. Educational reforms must focus not only on access but also on quality and relevance. Mental health support systems need greater attention, particularly within educational institutions .

Equally important is the need to strengthen democratic responsiveness. Policymakers should view youth not merely as beneficiaries of development programmes but as stakeholders in governance. Mechanisms for consultation, participation and dialogue can help bridge the gap between institutions and citizens .

Conclusion: A Historic Opportunity at Risk

India’s demographic dividend remains a historic opportunity. Few countries have enjoyed such favourable demographic conditions while simultaneously benefiting from technological transformation and economic expansion. But demographic advantages are not self-executing. They require investments in human capital, institutional effectiveness and social inclusion . The central question is whether India can convert aspiration into achievement. The answer will shape not only the country’s economic future but also the character of its democracy. A generation that is educated, connected and ambitious possesses enormous potential to drive progress. Yet potential alone is not enough. It must be matched by opportunities that allow young people to build meaningful lives and contribute to society .

Q&A Section

1. What is the “aspiration gap” and why is it a concern for India?
The aspiration gap refers to the widening disconnect between the ambitions of India’s youth and the available opportunities. While young Indians are more educated, connected, and ambitious than ever, the labour market has not kept pace, leading to frustration, anxiety, and disillusionment. This gap threatens not only economic growth but also the health of India’s democracy .

2. What are the main challenges facing India’s youth in the labour market?
The main challenges include intense competition for limited jobs, underemployment (where workers are in positions that do not use their qualifications), precarious work (such as temporary jobs with no security), and skill mismatches (where graduates lack the skills employers need). Despite being one of the fastest-growing economies, India’s growth has not translated into broad-based, quality employment for its youth .

3. How has the education system contributed to the aspiration gap?
While enrolment rates have improved, the quality of education has not kept pace. Employers frequently report difficulties in finding candidates with the required skills, while graduates struggle to secure suitable employment. Over 60% of graduates are considered “unemployable” due to skill deficits. The rapid expansion of higher education has not been matched by improvements in quality, leaving graduates ill-prepared for the job market .

4. What impact do examination controversies have on public trust?
Recurring controversies around exams like NEET, with paper leaks, cancellations, and delays, severely damage public confidence. In a country where government jobs symbolize stability and social mobility, these failures are seen as a theft of time and a broken promise. Only two of 45 major exam leak cases over two decades led to convictions, reinforcing a sense that the system is rigged and that hard work is not rewarded fairly .

5. What are the political implications of youth disillusionment?
Young people who feel excluded are more likely to become cynical and disengaged from democratic processes. While India’s youth are politically aware and vocal, unmet expectations can lead to polarisation, distrust, and withdrawal. The protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party reflect this discontent and the growing demand for accountability. Addressing this requires not just creating jobs, but building credible, transparent pathways to opportunity and strengthening democratic responsiveness .

The Health Care Data That Matters to Households: A Deep Dive into India’s Spending, Insurance, and the Reality of Out-of-Pocket Expenses

By Chandrakant Lahariya
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

For the last few weeks, India’s health conversation has revolved around the findings from the sixth round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-6). Yet, while NFHS-6 is being discussed, two datasets of arguably greater immediate consequence received far less attention. In late April, the National Statistical Office released the findings of the 80th Round of the survey on Household Social Consumption: Health. In late May, the Union health ministry released the National Health Accounts estimates for 2022-23. Together, they tell us how India’s health system is financed, used, and experienced. That is the question on which the health of families and citizens is based [citation:original text].

We know India is a mixed health care system where both government and the private sector provide health care services. In fact, a majority of outpatient and inpatient services are provided by the private sector, with exceptions such as immunisation and delivery-related services, which are mainly provided by the government [citation:original text].

Understanding India’s Health Data Architecture

The National Health Accounts (NHA) is India’s most systematic accounting of how money moves through the health system: government budgets, insurance, social security schemes, household spending, medicines, hospitals and outpatient care. It follows the internationally accepted System of Health Accounts 2011 framework and is based on official data sources. India has been preparing these NHA reports since the mid-2000s. The NSO survey has a different approach and is based on primary data collection. The data are collected at the household level from rural and urban India and include information on illnesses, hospitalisation, outpatient care, insurance and expenditure. One shows health financing architecture. The other shows how ordinary people encounter it and spend their money [citation:original text].

These two surveys are of immense policy relevance. It has been reported that government health expenditure in India has increased over the last decade in nominal terms. The government’s share in total health expenditure has increased from 28.6% to 43.7%. Out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) as a share of total health expenditure (THE) fell from 64.2% to 43.4%. The NSO survey reports median out-of-pocket spending per hospitalisation at ₹1,285, with median expenditure in public facilities at only ₹1,100 [citation:original text].

The Context Behind the Numbers

While these might appear impressive, context gives a better picture. OOPE, at 43.4%, is still high. The globally accepted norm for OOPE is less than 10% of THE. Thailand has OOPE of less than 10%. The National Health Policy 2017 committed India to raising public health expenditure to 2.5% of GDP by 2025. By 2022-23, government health expenditure was 1.43% of GDP, or 1.48% under the revised GDP series. The country is going to miss the policy goal [citation:original text].

The NSO findings also raise questions that require debate. The proportion reporting ailments has nearly doubled, from 6.8% to 12.2% in rural areas and from 9.1% to 14.9% in urban areas. This may reflect improved awareness and health-seeking behaviour. It may also reflect a rising burden of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer. If more people are falling ill, receiving diagnoses and seeking care, then the absolute amount paid by households may rise even when the share of OOPE falls. Percentage can comfort governments. But amounts in rupees trouble households [citation:original text].

The Insurance Question: Coverage Is Not Financial Protection

Private health insurance’s share in total health expenditure rose from 3.4% to 9.2% over the decade. Coverage under government health insurance and financing schemes has expanded substantially. Yet insurance coverage is not the same as financial protection. Many schemes are hospitalisation-centric, while much of India’s health burden lies in outpatient care, medicines, diagnostics and chronic disease management. A diabetic patient does not become financially secure merely because a hospitalisation package exists. She needs affordable consultations, reliable medicines, periodic tests and continuity of care [citation:original text].

While the government spends over ₹36,000 crore on the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), which provides a ₹5 lakh per family per year cover for secondary and tertiary care hospitalisations, the scheme’s impact on catastrophic health spending is limited by its focus on hospitalisation. According to a 2025 study in the Indian Journal of Medical Research, while AB-PMJAY has reduced catastrophic health expenditure for hospitalisations among the poor, out-of-pocket spending on outpatient care and medicines has actually increased for many families.

The State-Level Reality

The national averages also hide the India that matters most — the states. Public facility use, private sector dependence, medicine costs, insurance reach, hospitalisation expenses and outpatient access vary enormously. A national decline in OOPE can coexist with distress spending in particular states, districts, and social groups. These datasets contain the raw material for such analysis, but public discussion rarely moves beyond national-level headlines. Some of these data at the state or district level are not even available [citation:original text].

A 2026 report by the National Health Systems Resource Centre (NHSRC) found that in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, OOPE as a share of THE is over 60%, while in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, it is below 30%. This disparity reflects differences in public health infrastructure, insurance penetration, and the quality of public facilities. The data also reveal a significant urban-rural divide: rural households spend a higher share of their income on health, partly due to lack of access to quality public facilities and higher out-of-pocket costs.

The “Coverage Effect” and the Need for Critical Analysis

Policymakers are increasingly using the “coverage effect” to argue that India is making progress. Under this framework, if most people have health insurance, then financial protection exists. But this reasoning is flawed. As a recent article in The Hindu argued, “Health insurance coverage, unlike actual health expenditure, cannot be treated as a proxy for financial protection. It is possible to have high coverage and high OOPE—a classic case of ‘coverage without protection'” . For instance, in Karnataka, while 58% of households have insurance coverage, they still incur 90% of healthcare costs out of pocket .

The NHA and NSO datasets can help identify where public money is flowing—to primary health care, medicines, insurance reimbursements or tertiary hospitals—and where people are still paying heavily despite coverage. Academics and researchers need to deep-dive into these data and provide evidence on whether AB-PMJAY is reducing catastrophic expenditure or merely shifting part of the bill [citation:original text].

Why Ordinary Indians Need to Understand These Surveys

Every taxpayer has a stake in knowing whether increased spending is translating into services. Every family is responsible for it. The NHA can help identify whether public money is flowing to primary health care, medicines, insurance reimbursements or tertiary hospitals. The NSO survey can locate where people are still paying heavily despite coverage, where public facilities are trusted, and where the private sector dominates by default [citation:original text].

NFHS tells us where India’s children, women and families stand on key health indicators. But the NHA 2022-23 and the 80th round of the NSO survey tell us whether the system has money, design and fairness to move them somewhere better. We must learn to use health data not by familiarity or headline appeal, but by policy usefulness [citation:original text].

The two most actionable health datasets released this year did not receive the argument they deserved. If read carefully, they could and should shape the next decade of Indian health policy. When it comes to health data, India has a dual challenge: it lacks credible, timely and reliable health data, and it often refuses to read the data that can change lives [citation:original text].

Q&A Section

1. What is the difference between the National Health Accounts (NHA) and the NSO health survey?

The NHA is India’s systematic accounting of how money moves through the health system, tracking government budgets, insurance, household spending, and hospital costs. The NSO survey is a household-level primary data collection that captures people’s actual experiences of illness, healthcare utilisation, and expenditure. One shows the financing architecture; the other shows how ordinary people encounter and spend on healthcare .

2. What is the current state of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) in India?

While OOPE as a share of total health expenditure has fallen from 64.2% to 43.4%, it is still high. The globally accepted norm is less than 10%. India has missed its National Health Policy 2017 target of raising public health expenditure to 2.5% of GDP, with government spending at 1.43% of GDP in 2022-23 .

3. Why has the proportion of people reporting ailments nearly doubled?

The proportion reporting ailments has nearly doubled—from 6.8% to 12.2% in rural areas and 9.1% to 14.9% in urban areas. This may reflect improved awareness and health-seeking behaviour, but it may also reflect a rising burden of non-communicable diseases like diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and cancer, leading to more diagnoses and care-seeking .

4. Why is health insurance coverage not the same as financial protection?

Many health insurance schemes are hospitalisation-centric, while much of India’s health burden lies in outpatient care, medicines, diagnostics, and chronic disease management. A person may have insurance but still pay high out-of-pocket costs for consultations, tests, and medicines. In Karnataka, for example, 58% of households have insurance but still incur 90% of healthcare costs out of pocket. Insurance coverage is often a poor proxy for financial protection without considering what is actually covered .

5. What is India’s dual challenge with health data?

India faces two interconnected challenges: a lack of credible, timely, and reliable health data, and a tendency to ignore or underutilise the data that does exist. This prevents evidence-based policymaking and masks significant state-level and social-group disparities, such as the fact that in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, OOPE is over 60%, compared to below 30% in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu .

Navigating the 3Fs: How Australia Became India’s Necessary Partner for Energy, Education, and Engagement

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi landed in Melbourne for bilateral talks with Australian PM Anthony Albanese, the timing spoke volumes. India’s economy faces constraints from what finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman calls the “3Fs” — fuel, fertiliser, and foreign exchange. Gold and crude imports are straining the external balance. Australia can help hedge against all three. The agenda can be summed up in three Es: energy, education, and engagement .

This visit, which also included a stopover in New Zealand to follow up on a recently inked free trade agreement, represented a pivotal moment in India’s Indo-Pacific diplomacy. It elevated bilateral ties, unlocked landmark agreements on energy and minerals, and positioned India as an attractive destination for long-term foreign direct investment . The outcomes of these visits were not merely diplomatic exercises but strategic investments in India’s future, directly addressing the country’s most pressing economic vulnerabilities.

The Energy Imperative: From Critical Minerals to Nuclear Fuel

The most significant deliverable of the Melbourne summit centered on Australian uranium exports to India. After nearly 12 years of a civil nuclear agreement on paper, Australia and India finalized the administrative arrangements needed to begin commercial uranium exports . The civil nuclear agreement sat unused for nearly 12 years because the two sides could not agree on how to track and report uranium transfers. India’s foreign secretary said resolving the impasse required “very intense discussions” over two years .

The uranium deal reflects a strategic shift. Australia holds roughly one-third of global uranium reserves and agreed to supply uranium to India exclusively for peaceful civilian nuclear power generation under strict International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards . India wants to expand its nuclear capacity from roughly 8 gigawatts (GW) to 100 GW by 2047 — a more than tenfold increase — and Australia wants to demonstrate its value as a reliable Indo-Pacific partner while diversifying its export relationships . When the strategic logic on both sides pointed in the same direction, the procedural obstacles gave way .

Equally significant was the focus on critical minerals. The leaders announced work on an Australia-India Critical Minerals Corridor and deepened cooperation in critical minerals, renewables, and green hydrogen . Many minerals India considers critical are key to future energy security, and Australia has lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earths for batteries and EVs . Australia holds 21 of the 49 minerals India has flagged as critical, at a time when India’s clean energy and semiconductor ambitions need exactly that kind of supply security .

India currently imports nearly 100 per cent of its lithium, cobalt, and nickel requirements, with a heavy reliance on China for processed rare earth elements (REEs). China controls roughly 60–70 per cent of global mining and over 80–90 per cent of refining/processing . Partnerships with resource-rich nations like Australia are central to Modi’s “Aatmanirbhar Bharat” strategy . The Critical Minerals Corridor aims to create secure, diversified supply chains, from Australian extraction to potential Indian processing and manufacturing hubs . Former Australian PM Scott Morrison publicly backed this vision, noting Australia’s extraction expertise paired with India’s potential as a global processing and refining powerhouse for rare earths and other minerals .

As for fertiliser, the logic is equally compelling. Australia is a major agricultural exporter, but imports about 3.8 million tonnes of urea annually due to limited domestic production. The Perdaman Ceres urea plant in Western Australia has been developed in partnership with India’s ACME Group. If India expands partnerships to scale such projects and adopts Australian innovation, both countries can cut import dependence for fertilisers .

The Education Corridor: Building Capability at Home

Indian students spend an estimated $75 billion annually on overseas tuition, accommodation, and living expenses. Indian students are Australia’s second-largest cohort, while the diaspora Down Under is 1.4 million strong and growing . Australia now has two campuses in India and six more have been approved, and the country is also investing in skilling partnerships. All these institutions are working on employment outcomes pathways with Indian industry partners .

Deakin University celebrated the first graduates from its GIFT City Campus in Gujarat, India, marking a historic milestone . As the first foreign university to establish an international branch campus in India, Deakin GIFT City hosted a uniquely Australian university experience on Indian soil . Empowered with fresh Masters qualifications in either Business Analytics or Cyber Security, many graduates have already secured jobs with leading global employers in the finance and tech industry, in India and beyond . According to Deakin officials, 60–65% of the graduating cohort have secured jobs, with top salaries reaching AUD$114,000 at parity – about $20,000 higher than the equivalent in Australia .

Modi’s visit could lock-in more joint research and mutual degree recognition. IIT Hyderabad and Monash University already run an Australia-India Critical Minerals Research Hub. Adding more campuses means building Indian students’ skills in battery chemistry, recycling, and water tech, while turning education from export revenue for Australia into skilled manpower for India’s manufacturing. Equally, this could help ease some of Australia’s labour and talent shortages .

With the introduction of the Australia–India Future Skills Initiative, the focus is also now on merging job opportunities between Australia and India, with approved Australian branch campuses in India set to play a significant role . The Australian high commissioner to India stated that the new partnership seeks to match the skills provided by Australian universities in India with those required by Australian companies operating there, of which there are around 150 .

Engagement and the Foreign Exchange Dilemma

The Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) aims to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on a single source. New Delhi and Canberra can show how it works when two middle powers align geography with capacity . The SCRI was launched in April 2021 by the trade ministers of India, Japan and Australia to create a virtuous cycle of enhancing supply chain resilience with a view to eventually attaining strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth in the region . The PM’s visit should give SCRI substance by mapping critical minerals and urea projects to Indian manufacturing clusters, determining standards on due diligence, and pairing Australian miners and energy firms with Indian manufacturers via the accompanying Indian business delegation .

There is also a route for amelioration of India’s foreign exchange pains, via gold imports. Australia is one of the world’s top three gold producers and a meaningful supplier of the metal to India. Under the India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA), a dedicated tariff-rate framework already allows targeted gold entries with preferential concessions .

PM Modi also stopped briefly in New Zealand after his Australia visit, which was a perfect follow-up to the recently inked free trade agreement (FTA) between the two countries. The FTA offers India a niche partner for climate tech, sustainable agriculture, and indigenous-people-led business. This is good news for India’s burgeoning demand for sustainable food and clean energy inputs . Significantly, New Zealand has committed $20 billion of foreign direct investment (FDI) in India over 15 years — in manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy, agritech, and innovation . India would do well to tap the underappreciated potential of the Māori economy. Māori-owned enterprises and Iwi trusts control significant assets in agriculture, aquaculture, forestry and renewable energy .

Conclusion: A Necessary Partnership

If the three Es align — energy that neutralises the fuel and fertiliser risks, education that builds talent, and engagement through SCRI and ECTA that diversifies risk — the India-Australia relationship moves from being one of “natural partners” to becoming a necessary one . Modi’s Melbourne visit was part of the same rebalancing seen across Indo-Pacific partnerships: corridors built around supply chains and resilience .

With Deakin University’s GIFT City campus already marking convocations, the University of Western Australia launching Mumbai and Chennai campuses in 2026, and the University of New South Wales setting up a campus in Bengaluru, education is no longer just about outbound students but also about building capability at home . The next few months will show if New Delhi and Canberra can collaborate to navigate the 3Fs and fulfil the 3Es agenda .

Q&A Section

1. What are the “3Fs” and “3Es” that defined PM Modi’s Australia visit?

The “3Fs” refer to India’s economic constraints: fuel, fertiliser, and foreign exchange. The “3Es” represent the agenda for the visit: energy, education, and engagement. Australia was positioned as a partner that could help India hedge against the 3Fs through the 3Es, by providing critical minerals for energy security, educational partnerships, and supply chain resilience .

2. What was the significance of the uranium export agreement signed during the visit?

The uranium export agreement was the most significant deliverable of the Melbourne summit. After nearly 12 years of a civil nuclear agreement on paper, the two sides finalized administrative arrangements to begin commercial uranium exports. This supports India’s goal of expanding nuclear capacity from 8 GW to 100 GW by 2047, while diversifying Australia’s export relationships .

3. How does the Critical Minerals Corridor benefit India?

The Critical Minerals Corridor aims to create secure, diversified supply chains for minerals essential to India’s clean energy and semiconductor ambitions. Australia holds 21 of the 49 minerals India has flagged as critical. The corridor envisions Australian extraction feeding into Indian processing and manufacturing hubs, reducing India’s heavy reliance on China for rare earth elements .

4. What is the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI)?

The SCRI is a trilateral initiative launched in April 2021 by India, Japan, and Australia to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on a single source—specifically China. It aims to create resilient supply chains through sharing best practices, investment promotion events, and buyer-seller matching events. The initiative is a key component of the “engagement” pillar of the bilateral relationship .

5. How is the education sector partnership between India and Australia evolving?

Australia now has two campuses in India with six more approved, moving beyond just welcoming Indian students overseas. Deakin University’s GIFT City campus in Gujarat has already graduated its first cohort, with students securing jobs at top salaries. The partnership aims to build Indian students’ skills in critical areas like battery chemistry and cybersecurity, while also helping ease Australia’s labour shortages through skilled migration pathways .

Questioning Ram Mandir Theft is a Dharmic Duty: A Crisis of Faith and Accountability

By Shubhrastha
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Daan, the act of giving, is among the oldest and most precisely theorised concepts in the Hindu moral imagination. It is not charity or a secular transfer of surplus in the Western sense. It is a yajna made material, sung by the Rigveda, codified by the Manusmriti and extensively philosophised in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. To give to a deity, a temple or a sacred cause is to enter a covenant with dharma itself. The giver surrenders something and the recipient assumes a burden. It is, in the deepest sense, the most serious transaction a Hindu society can perform .

A daily wager in Barabanki sets aside ten rupees from the 100 he earns — not because he can afford to, but because Ram asks and he cannot refuse. A grandmother in Sitapur stashes away a small sum under her cot; she calls it Ram ka paisa that she has already surrendered in her heart. A family in New Jersey transfers its offering on the morning of the consecration, believing it is repaying a civilisational debt. None of them are making a donation in the modern institutional sense. They are relinquishing ownership. In the Hindu imagination, that money no longer belongs to them. It belongs to Ram .

Any controversy surrounding donations to the Ram Mandir, whether ultimately substantiated or disproved, cannot therefore be reduced to an accounting dispute. Something more has gone astray in the Ram Mandir embezzlement .

The Anatomy of a Crisis of Trust

The allegations of theft at the Ram Mandir, which surfaced in June 2026, have shaken the faith of millions of devotees. A former accounts supervisor raised the alarm, and his claims snowballed into a major political row, with opposition parties questioning the handling of cash, jewellery, gold and silver donated by devotees . The Uttar Pradesh government set up a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inquire into the allegations, and an FIR was registered on June 25 naming eight people, who were subsequently arrested .

The scale of the alleged irregularities is staggering. The SIT is reportedly investigating over ₹124 crore spent by the Trust on major events over the past two years, including the consecration ceremony and a flag-hoisting event . The largest expenditure under scrutiny is ₹113 crore spent on the consecration ceremony on January 22, 2024, attended by nearly 8,000 guests . The SIT is also examining expenditure of ₹10.12 crore on a flag-hoisting ceremony held in November 2025, attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi .

In response to the public outcry, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the independent body managing the shrine, held a meeting on July 6 and accepted the resignations of general secretary Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra, who took “moral responsibility” for the alleged irregularities . Krisha Mohan, a retired Indian Forest Service officer and RSS member, was appointed as interim general secretary .

Yet, the damage to public trust is immense. As trust treasurer Govind Dev Giri said, “the primary concern was the damage caused to the sentiments of devotees and the institution’s credibility” .

The Dharmic Duty to Question

The Ram Janmabhoomi movement was never merely about reclaiming a site. It sought to restore the legitimacy of Hindu civilisational memory within India’s public life. That is the movement’s enduring achievement. Recognition has arrived. Victory, however, demands a different virtue than struggle .

Communities that spend decades fighting for recognition naturally learn to close ranks, overlook internal failings, and instinctively defend those perceived to be advancing the larger cause. Such instincts were understandable while the cause itself remained contested. But when they survive unchanged after victory, they begin to imprison the civilisation they were earlier meant to protect .

A devotee hears troubling news and immediately feels unease. Before conscience gains speech, another calculation intervenes. Will asking this question strengthen those who opposed the temple? In that moment, politics begins to dictate the terms upon which principles must speak. Nothing could be further removed from the civilisational grammar of Hindu thought .

The Valmiki Ramayana itself refuses to place even its highest ideals beyond moral examination. Early in the exile, Sita questions Rama when he speaks of hunting in the forest. Her intervention is moral companionship and a conviction that love sometimes demands ethical correction. Later, the citizenry cast a shadow over Rama’s kingship, compelling a decision whose moral complexity has animated debate for centuries. The remarkable fact remains that tradition preserves question both in shastra and in lok .

This is the inheritance of Hindu civilisation. Upanishads begin with inquiry. Bhagavad Gita emerges from doubt. Epics preserve moral argument. If Rama himself could be questioned by Sita, tested by lok and debated across generations without diminishing his stature, then no Ram bhakti is allowed to escape scrutiny. To suggest that questioning those who administer institutions associated with Rama weakens Hindu civilisation is, paradoxically, to depart from the very tradition that has sustained Sanatana thought .

The Principle of Nyasa: Trusteeship as Dharma

Classical Hindu civilisation understood another principle — nyasa or trusteeship. Sacred wealth was never owned by those who administered it, it was held in trust. Chola temples inscribed donations and expenditures on stone walls for the community to see. Transparency was dharma made visible .

Ram ka paisa belongs to Ram — neither to trustees nor to any administrator. To insist that it reaches him with complete integrity is neither rebellion, nor opposition, nor disloyalty. It is, perhaps, the oldest act of bhakti (devotion) .

In an age preoccupied with distraction, performance, and self-interest, the demand for transparency in sacred spaces is a quiet act of moral resistance. It insists that every act of giving carries inherent dignity and a corresponding responsibility. The challenge before us is not simply to feel deeply, but to live courageously – to resist indifference, reject the comfort of silence, and allow the faith of millions to have a moral claim upon us. Only then will trust be restored. And only then will the Ram Mandir truly be a temple of faith, not a symbol of a broken covenant.

Q&A Section

1. What are the key allegations in the Ram Mandir donation controversy?

The allegations involve the embezzlement of tens of millions of rupees in donations and offerings. A former accounts supervisor alleged that money, gold, and silver donated by devotees were misappropriated . The SIT is investigating over ₹124 crore spent on major events, including the consecration ceremony and a flag-hoisting event . Eight people have been arrested, and the Trust’s leadership has resigned .

2. Why is the concept of daan important for understanding the severity of the controversy?

Daan is not charity; it is a yajna (sacrifice) where the giver surrenders ownership. Money given to Ram is no longer considered the devotee’s property; it belongs to Ram . Theft of such offerings is not just a financial crime but a violation of a sacred covenant. As one Trust member put it, “It is an attack on the faith of Hindus” .

3. What institutional changes have been made in response to the allegations?

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust accepted the resignations of General Secretary Champat Rai and Trustee Anil Mishra, who took “moral responsibility” . Krishna Mohan was appointed as interim general secretary . A new CEO post has also been created .

4. What role has the judiciary played in the controversy?

The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and the Trust seeking responses on pleas for an independent, court-monitored probe . The Court has directed the SIT to submit a status report and details of its composition. The issue has been posted for further consideration .

5. What is the author’s central argument regarding the right to question the Temple authorities?

The author argues that questioning authorities, even in a sacred context, is a dharmic duty. Drawing on examples from the Ramayana, Upanishads, and Gita, the author asserts that Hindu tradition is built on inquiry and moral argument . To defend the Temple’s image by silencing questions, the author contends, is to depart from that tradition. The author invokes the principle of nyasa (trusteeship), arguing that Ram’s wealth is held in trust, and the community has a right to ensure its integrity .

The Right Kind of Growth is Key to Economic and Climate Justice: A Response to the Degrowth Debate

By Lucas Chancel, Cornelia Mohren, Thomas Piketty, Anmol Somanchi, Jonas Dietrich, and Moritz Odersky
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Is it possible for all countries to achieve prosperity while limiting global warming to under 2°C? This question lies at the heart of the Global Justice Report, published by the World Inequality Lab [citation:original text].

John Burn-Murdoch dismisses the GJR as a call for degrowth (“The shrinking arguments for degrowth”, Data Points, FT Weekend, June 27). We agree with much of his evidence on growth’s merits — but his criticisms of the GJR are wide of the mark [citation:original text].

In fact, the core motivation of the GJR is to foster rapid growth in developing economies, while preserving planetary habitability. In our central “sustainable convergence” scenario, per capita incomes reach €60,000 (at purchasing power parity in 2025) in all countries by 2100. World GDP would be four times larger in volume terms, with growth rates of over 4 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, today’s poorest regions [citation:original text].

It is true that rich countries experience very low growth rates (0–0.5 per cent) in our central scenario. But that is because global income convergence above €60,000 is just not compatible with the 2°C carbon budget. What matters for global warming is the historical stock of carbon emissions, of which the global north has already consumed far beyond its fair share [citation:original text].

The “Sustainable Convergence” Scenario: Not Degrowth, But a Global Rebalancing

The objection that current generations should not be responsible for their ancestors’ actions rests on shaky ground: children in rich countries today inherit the wealth, longevity and education that those past emissions made possible. Historical responsibilities simply cannot be dismissed [citation:original text].

Burn-Murdoch reassures readers that many countries are “decoupling”. True. But the speed and scale of decoupling needed to reconcile prosperity for all with the 2°C carbon budget have no historical precedent, and are highly improbable [citation:original text]. We find that projecting the growth rates of the last three decades, coupled with rapid decarbonisation of energy systems (in line with ambitious “net zero” trajectories), would result in warming of over 2.5°C by 2100 [citation:original text].

Finally, the GJR’s central finding is that what matters for the carbon footprint and welfare is the content of growth (its sectoral composition) and not its aggregate level (GDP) [citation:original text]. This point was made long ago by no less than Simon Kuznets, one of the pioneers of modern national accounts. Yet it is entirely missing from today’s debates [citation:original text].

Burn-Murdoch concludes that the problem is too little growth, not too much. This is a misdiagnosis: the problem is not only how much we grow but also what we grow — and, importantly, for whom [citation:original text].

A Plan for Prosperity Within Planetary Boundaries

The Global Justice Report, launched on June 4, 2026, by the World Inequality Lab, is the first fully quantified framework combining global wealth redistribution, reform of the international financial system, energy transition and changes in consumption patterns . It is the result of 24 months of work, involving 45 researchers from all over the world, combining insights from economics, history and climate science .

According to the report, it is possible for all countries to converge towards an average per capita monthly income of €5,000 by 2100 while remaining within planetary limits. The study contends that this goal can only be achieved through three interconnected strategies: rapid decarbonisation of energy systems, a shift towards “sufficiency” involving reduced labour hours and lower material consumption, and a substantial reduction in income and wealth inequality both within and between nations .

The report projects a dramatic redistribution of global wealth. The share of wealth held by the world’s poorest half of the population could rise from the current 2% to 30% by 2100, while the billionaire class’s share would fall from 6% to just 0.05%. Nearly 90% of the global population would see their incomes double while working roughly half as many hours as today .

As Lucas Chancel, lead author of the report, explains: “The key question here is how can all countries in the world reach €5,000 in per capita monthly GNI by 2100, which is slightly more than the current level in countries like the US today, while at the same time preserving planetary habitability and keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees” .

The Role of “Sufficiency”

The report’s most ambitious element is the concept of “sufficiency”. Annual labour hours would drop from 2,100 to 1,000 by 2100, continuing the long-term trend of shorter working hours. The share of global working hours devoted to health and education services would rise from 11% to 43% . There would also be a major shift from material to immaterial sectors, with 43% of labour hours in education, health, and public services in all countries by 2100; and changes in food habits, so as to allow for a gradual return of forest cover to 1900 levels .

This ambitious structural transformation of the economy plays a central role in making prosperity for all compatible with planetary habitability . “Fast decarbonization of energy systems alone will not suffice. It needs to be supplemented by sufficiency and by a sharp compression of inequality, so as to finance climate investment and to sustain political support from bottom- and middle-income groups, both in the North and in the South” .

Financing the Transition: A New Global Justice Fund

The proposed transition would be supported by a new Global Justice Fund, which would mobilise investments averaging 10.3% of global GDP annually between 2030 and 2060. Funding would come from mechanisms including a global wealth tax, a world sovereign wealth fund and a global income tax targeting the wealthiest individuals .

As Thomas Piketty explains: “The global rich, and especially the billionaires and multimillionaires from the North, have benefited disproportionately from global economic growth in recent decades and bear a major historical responsibility for the accumulation of GHG emissions… It is therefore perfectly legitimate, in our view, that they become the prime contributors to the redistribution of income and wealth that is now necessary to repair the damage and to reconcile global socioeconomic convergence with the preservation of planetary habitability” .

A Response to the Critics

The report has attracted its share of criticism. Some have dismissed it as utopian or wacky . Others, like Burn-Murdoch, have wrongly characterised it as a call for degrowth .

But the report’s authors are clear: “In our benchmark ‘sustainable convergence’ scenario, all countries converge to €5,000 in monthly per capita gross national income or GNI (€60,000 per year) by 2100, which is close to the current level in the world’s richest countries. In other words, there is a growth cap in rich countries, but poor countries are allowed to reach this level” .

As of 2025, monthly GNI varies from €290 in Sub-Saharan Africa and €720 in South and South-East Asia to €4,590 in North America/Oceania. What the report proposes involves enormous growth for a country like India, which would become as prosperous as the US is today in per capita terms, including a 4-5x rise in per-capita material consumption .

The report also looks at scenarios with even higher growth, including a “Productivist Convergence” scenario with no work-time reduction, where all countries converge to €10,000 in monthly GNI. The problem is that this comes with cataclysmic global warming: 4 degrees or more according to our projections. In contrast, we show that it is possible to limit warming to 1.8 degrees with the €5,000 target .

Conclusion

The Global Justice Report offers a radical but necessary vision for the 21st century. It demonstrates that prosperity for all is possible within planetary boundaries—but only if we are willing to rethink the content of growth, not just its aggregate level. As the authors conclude: “Sustainability, equality, and prosperity in the 21st century are materially achievable. The carbon budget makes it possible, and history offers precedents of comparable scale… The obstacle in our path is not technical feasibility, but the absence of a shared vision of social progress that is both concrete and radical” .

Q&A Section

1. What is the Global Justice Report (GJR)?
The Global Justice Report is a study published by the World Inequality Lab in June 2026. It proposes a fully quantified plan to achieve global economic equality, reduce inequality, and limit global warming to 1.8°C by 2100. The report argues that prosperity for all is possible within planetary boundaries if three conditions are met simultaneously: rapid decarbonisation, a shift towards “sufficiency” (reduced labour hours and material consumption), and a drastic reduction in inequality of income, wealth and power, both between and within countries .

2. Is the Global Justice Report a call for degrowth?
No. The report’s authors explicitly reject this characterisation. Their “sustainable convergence” scenario projects that all countries would reach a per capita monthly income of €5,000 by 2100—close to the current level in the world’s richest countries. This would involve enormous growth for developing economies like India, which would see a 4-5x rise in per-capita material consumption. Rich countries, however, would experience very low growth rates (0–0.5 per cent) because global income convergence beyond €5,000 is incompatible with the 2°C carbon budget [citation:original text].

3. What is the concept of “sufficiency” in the report?
“Sufficiency” refers to a major shift away from overconsumption, involving a sharp reduction in labour hours and raw materials extraction, along with big changes in consumption patterns, food habits, land use and forest cover. In the report’s central scenario, annual labour hours per worker would fall from around 2,100 to 1,000 by 2100, and the share of global working hours devoted to health and education services would rise from 11% to 43%. The authors argue that fast decarbonization alone is not enough; it must be supplemented by sufficiency and by a sharp compression of inequality .

4. How would the transition be financed?
The transition would be supported by a new Global Justice Fund, which would mobilise investments averaging 10.3% of global GDP annually between 2030 and 2060. Funding would come from mechanisms including a global wealth tax, a world sovereign wealth fund and a global income tax targeting the wealthiest individuals. The report argues that the global rich, especially billionaires and multimillionaires from the North, have benefited disproportionately from the global economic system that led to climate change, and it is legitimate that they become the prime contributors to the redistribution necessary to repair the damage .

5. What is the projected impact on inequality and well-being?
The report projects a dramatic redistribution of global wealth. The share of wealth held by the bottom half of the global population would rise from 2% to 30% by 2100, while the billionaire class’s share would fall from 6% to 0.05%. Nearly 90% of the global population would see their incomes double while working roughly half as many hours as today. When the newly acquired leisure time and the habitability of the planet are taken into account, more than 99% of the population would benefit .

New York, Devolution, and AI Anxiety: Three Letters That Capture Our Political Moment

By Aditi Nayar
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

The victories of left-wing candidates backed by New York mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City Democratic Party congressional primaries have inspired hopes and fears in equal measure of what those results signify for the future trajectory of American politics [citation:original text].

In that regard, there is historical precedent at hand to remind us that New York City is not the United States [citation:original text]. In February 1948, Leo Isacson, the candidate of the communist-influenced American Labor Party and a supporter of the third-party progressive presidential candidacy of former vice-president Henry Wallace, won a special congressional election in the Bronx, trouncing his Democratic opponent [citation:original text]. Isacson’s win triggered panic in Democratic Party circles about the re-election chances of President Harry Truman amid claims that Wallace might win as many as 10 million normally Democratic votes in November and hand the election to the Republicans [citation:original text]. But a more sceptical, and as it turned out prescient, assessment of the national implications of the results in that working-class, heavily Jewish and black, Bronx district was provided by one sardonic commentator: “The Bronx has capitulated, Harlem is tottering, Brooklyn is rushing to the barricades; and the only thing that is left is Greenwich Village and the rest of America” [citation:original text]. As it turned out, Wallace’s candidacy fizzled out, attracting only slightly more than 1 million votes (one half of them in New York), and Truman was re-elected [citation:original text]. As was true then, and is likely true now, what happens in New York may stay in New York [citation:original text].

The Mamdani Effect: A New York Insurgency with National Echoes

Less than seven months after Zohran Mamdani completed his stunning run to become the youngest mayor of New York City in a century, a trio of Mamdani-backed left-wing congressional candidates accomplished similar feats in the June 2026 Democratic primaries . Two of the candidates he endorsed, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and community activist Darializa Avila Chevalier, unseated incumbent Democratic congressmen . One of the defeated, 79-year-old Adriano Espaillat, had served five terms in the House of Representatives and was the leader of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus . The other, Dan Goldman, made his name as the lead lawyer in Trump’s first impeachment trial and had the financial support of Aipac, the deep-pocketed pro-Israel lobbying group . In the third race, state assemblywoman Claire Valdez beat an opponent who had the backing of much of New York City’s Democratic establishment . As one observer noted, Mamdani has assembled a coalition in New York City that is capable of elevating like-minded candidates to office .

The trio of victories were a stark illustration of the divisions in the Democratic Party and sent a clear message to its leaders across the US . Given that the three newly minted Democratic congressional nominees in New York are virtual locks in the city’s November general election, Mamdani’s socialist movement – with its focus on populist economic issues like government-funded health insurance, higher taxes on the wealthy and affordable housing – is no longer limited to the confines of America’s largest city . It is spilling out into national politics. If Democrats succeed in gaining a majority in the House of Representatives in November, there is likely to be a larger, more vocal left-wing contingent among their ranks .

The core tenets unifying these three candidates mirror Mamdani’s own platform: populist economic policy centered on government-funded health insurance, higher taxes on billionaires, and aggressive affordable housing initiatives . However, their foreign policy positions—specifically a fierce critique of US military support for Israel—and aggressive anti-establishment rhetoric are what have Washington Democrats sweating . The rise of this uncompromising left wing has drawn immediate, anxious comparisons to the right-wing Tea Party movement of 2010 and the subsequent MAGA surge that fundamentally reshaped the Republican Party . House Speaker Mike Johnson has framed the New York results as an opportunity to warn the nation, saying, “These kind of people have been popping up… It is a dangerous thing. This is not a joke. We are in a fight right now to save the republic, and every American needs to take this seriously” .

Yet, as the historical precedent of 1948 suggests, and as the election results in other parts of the country on the same night confirm, New York City is not the United States . Outside the five boroughs, moderate and establishment forces held their ground. In Utah, Democrats backed former Congressman Ben McAdams for a newly created Democratic-friendly congressional district over more liberal alternatives. In a Maryland seat outside Washington DC, Democrats opted for a moderate candidate who endorses continued US support for Israel – a stark contrast to the pro-Palestinian sentiment among many New York City’s victorious candidates . In November’s midterm congressional elections, Democrats will have to win in battleground seats scattered across the nation – including some in the suburbs outside solidly liberal New York City – if they want to secure a majority. And the winners of those races will have politics decidedly different from the three Mamdani-backed socialists . All this suggests a Democratic party still grappling with its identity and direction .

Manchesterism: A Different Kind of Rebalancing

Across the Atlantic, a different kind of political experiment is underway. As Andy Burnham prepares to step into Number 10, his “Manchesterism” model—a political philosophy built on local leadership, regional empowerment, and a “place-first approach” that facilitates collaboration between the public and private sectors—has become central to his pitch for national renewal . Burnham has promised the “biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen” . The Bee Network, launched in 2023 to bring Greater Manchester’s buses back under public control and standardise fares, is the “Manchesterism” proof of concept: the state, by reasserting control over public services and costs, can deliver more for less .

One letter writer argues that the true lesson of Manchester’s success is not a neoliberal fairy tale, but the result of a competent, proactive, business-minded state that has pursued a clear vision for decades [citation:original text]. As Jose Pedro Reis writes, “the real ‘Manchesterism’ Britain needs is exactly that: public and private working in concert to deliver shared priorities, rather than re-fighting the tired war of business versus socialism” [citation:original text]. This is a model that has genuine achievements behind it, including a 2022 Health Foundation study that found devolved health and care responsibilities brought small improvements in life expectancy in Greater Manchester compared with similar places in England . Yet, as another letter writer points out, the UK is still highly centralised compared to the US. In the United States, states legislate their own income, property, sales and even inheritance tax, and control the cost of electricity through their own power grids—key drivers of economic growth [citation:original text]. “By contrast,” David Spirakis writes, “counties in England have very little to work with when attempting to make their regions more attractive… As long as Whitehall maintains a firm grasp on the economic levers of growth, whether from 10 Downing Street or a satellite office in the North, England can pretty much expect the status quo” [citation:original text].

The Fear in Law Firm Boardrooms

The third thread in this tapestry of political and technological change is the human response to AI in the legal profession. As one letter writer notes, the use of GenAI in law firms is revealing a contradiction: the legal profession is trained to value precedent, precision, and professional autonomy—traits that make them cautious adopters of new technology . The psychological barriers are significant: lawyers worry about accuracy or regulatory risk, but the most common resistance comes from a pride in traditional methods and a fear that AI threatens their expertise, identity, and sense of professional worth . As Andrea Foot writes, “AI’s implications remain genuinely unknown. In that context, the emotions lawyers feel about their expertise, identity and future are not noise to be managed. They are direct signals of what is really at stake for them and their firms” [citation:original text].

This is not just a question of technology adoption. It is a question of institutional legitimacy. Law firms face a “crisis of confidence” where they must decide whether to act strategically—by modernizing their technological foundation first—or to hesitate out of risk aversion . The firms that thrive will be those that treat AI as a “people project” rather than a tech project, focusing on building confidence, creating psychological safety, and enabling lawyers to see AI as a growth enabler that frees them up for deeper client relationships and strategic thinking .

Conclusion

The three letters that anchor this article—the historical warning about New York not being America, the celebration and critique of “Manchesterism,” and the plea to understand the psychology of AI fear—are not disconnected. They are the symptoms of a world in which old certainties are breaking down. In the US, the Democratic Party is grappling with an internal insurgency that echoes the Tea Party but is rooted in very different grievances. In the UK, a new prime minister is betting that a model of devolution built in one northern city can heal a fractured nation. And everywhere, professionals are confronting a technology that challenges not just their workflow, but their identity. These are not merely political or technological problems. They are existential questions about who we are, who we trust, and how we govern ourselves in a world that is changing faster than our institutions can keep up.

Different Parties, Same Folly: The Bipartisan Consensus on Government Overreach

By Andy Kessler
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Comedian Adam Carolla has a routine about how the very wealthy and very poor do the same things. Some printable examples: never eat at an Outback steakhouse, take outdoor showers, have lunch with Bono, drive a make of car that no longer exists [citation:original text].

Annoyingly, it’s the same for politicians. They all end up doing the same things—the horseshoe theory has become reality. The left and right, progressives and MAGA, bend around and almost touch. To me, it’s more like a teething ring, going round and round in a politician’s mouth with government power constantly biting down and inflicting pain on all of us. Or an M.C. Escher drawing with everything confusingly connected. I don’t like it one bit [citation:original text].

The Tariff Tango: When Protectionism Becomes Bipartisan

Who said this? “Today I’m announcing new tariffs in key sectors of the economy that are going to ensure that our workers are not held back by unfair trade practices. They include a . . . 25% tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum products . . . a 100% tariff on electric vehicles made in China . . . a 25% tariff on electric vehicle batteries from China and a 25% tariff on the critical minerals that make those batteries” [citation:original text].

Donald Trump? Nope, Joe Biden in May 2024. Eleven months later, “Tariff Man” Trump declared, “Effective at midnight, we will impose a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles.” Clang goes the horseshoe [citation:original text].

Or this: In 2024, Mr. Biden complained of “too many corporations in America ripping people off. Price gouging, junk fees, greedflation, shrinkflation.” Mr. Trump recently wrote that “Customers are being ‘gouged'” and that “gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!” Same, same. A recent Journal headline nailed it: “Trump, Like Biden, Takes Aim at Big Oil” [citation:original text]. The convergence of left and right on economic nationalism is a textbook example of the horseshoe theory . Both sides now attack the same villains—greedy corporations, foreign competitors—while championing government intervention to protect “the people” .

The AI Grab: When the Left and Right Both Want a Piece of the Action

Sen. Bernie Sanders wants government to own 50% of artificial intelligence companies. Get in line, Bernie. In June, Vice President JD Vance said, “The president is supportive of the United States owning these big AI companies.” OpenAI is considering giving up 5% to Washington. This on top of equity ownership in U.S. Steel, Intel, MP Materials and that piece of Nvidia’s processor sales to China. Make it stop [citation:original text].

The Biden administration put limits on AI chip export licenses. Mr. Trump continued the strict licensing requirement on high-end processors, but allowed exports of certain chips with a 25% tax. The Trump administration professes to be hands-off with AI, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth labeled Anthropic a supply-chain risk and the president is a yo-yo with on-again-off-again AI export controls [citation:original text]. Both administrations have embraced export controls on AI chips, even as economists warn these restrictions hurt American businesses by closing off international markets and reducing revenue needed for R&D .

The Union Courtship: A Bipartisan Dance

Speaking of the vice president, my colleague Allysia Finley had a column in May titled “JD Vance Courts Sean O’Brien and the Teamsters.” What? He’s got a lot more pandering to do, as Mr. Biden already declared himself “the most pro-union president in American history” [citation:original text].

This is not a joke. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien has praised Vance for his work supporting Teamster issues, particularly in the rail division . O’Brien even spoke at the Republican National Convention and successfully lobbied for a pro-union Labor Secretary . Some Republicans, like Senators Josh Hawley and Bernie Moreno, have carved out openly pro-union positions, a stark contrast to the party’s traditional skepticism of organized labor . The MAGA movement’s courting of working-class voters has created a populist-Republican faction that embraces labor unions—a development that would have been unthinkable in the Reagan era .

The Executive Overreach: “I’m the President and You’re Not”

Presidential powers were expressly limited by the Constitution. Or so we were led to believe. Remember Barack Obama’s “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone”? Not to be outdone, Mr. Trump last month—channeling Chevy Chase—declared, “I’m the president and you’re not.” Executive orders aren’t laws; only Congress can pass laws. But that hasn’t stopped Democratic and Republican presidents from seizing power—see Mr. Biden’s student loan forgiveness and Mr. Trump’s birthright ban (both eventually declared illegal) [citation:original text].

The Family Business: A Bipartisan Tradition of Profiteering

Yes, Democrats and Republicans have differences, often Venus- and Mars-like, on taxes, free speech, oppression theories and equity gobbledygook. But when it comes to family, they are often the same. They love their kids [citation:original text].

Hunter Biden was paid $1 million a year by Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings. He came with no discernible expertise beyond a father in a position of power. Now a new mining deal for tungsten extraction in Kazakhstan reportedly may see both the Trump boys and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s offspring positioned to extract their own benefits from the deal [citation:original text].

Then add “10 held for H for the big guy.” Hunter Biden admitted he is “H” and the “big guy” is Joe. And last week’s revelation of the Trump family’s $1.4 billion in crypto fees and gains in 2025. Teething rings in action [citation:original text].

The scale of the Trump family’s profiteering is staggering. According to a New Yorker investigation, Donald Trump and his immediate family have made $3.4 billion from his time in the White House, including more than $2.3 billion from various cryptocurrency ventures . A House Judiciary Committee report alleged the family built a personal cryptocurrency portfolio valued between $2.9 billion and $11.6 billion at peak 2025 prices, and that the White House now functions as the center of a new influence economy combining foreign capital, token sales, pardons, and regulatory relief . As New York Times correspondent Peter Baker noted, Trump’s profiteering makes Hunter Biden “look like a piker by comparison” .

Conclusion

It isn’t only politicians. Left-sympathizing Bill Maher of HBO fame recently said, “I want guns.” Is he gunning for viewers on the right? [citation:original text]

A few more rich-man-poor-man lines: They’re both outraged at the welfare system, they know the going rate for copper, and live in houses made of recycled materials. I’d add both are always screaming on their phone in public. Here’s what I would yell into my phone to politicians, “Stop pandering to the identical extremes as your opponents. Do you have any principles?” [citation:original text]

Q&A Section

1. What is the “horseshoe theory” and how does it apply to American politics?
The horseshoe theory argues that the far left and far right, despite being at opposite ends of the political spectrum, are often closer to each other in ideas and tactics than either is to the political center . In practice, both sides share similar attitudes toward government intervention, distrust of elites, and—increasingly—a willingness to scapegoat Jews and Israel . The theory has been cited to explain how Tucker Carlson’s anti-Zionism mirrors leftist critiques , and how Trump’s economic nationalism overlaps with progressive positions on tariffs and corporate greed .

2. How have Trump and Biden pursued similar policies on trade and AI?
Both presidents embraced protectionist trade policies, with Biden imposing tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum, EVs, and batteries [citation:original text], and Trump following with tariffs on all foreign-made automobiles [citation:original text]. Both also imposed export controls on advanced AI chips—Biden through his 2023 executive order, and Trump by continuing and expanding those restrictions . Economists warn that limiting the sale of American chips hurts domestic tech firms and reduces revenue for R&D, ultimately harming U.S. competitiveness .

3. What is the bipartisan approach to labor unions in the Trump era?
While traditional Republicans have been skeptical of unions, the MAGA movement has courted organized labor. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention and successfully lobbied for a pro-union Labor Secretary . Vice President JD Vance has been praised by O’Brien for supporting Teamster issues . Some Republicans, like Sen. Josh Hawley, have carved out openly pro-union positions, a stark contrast to the party’s traditional stance .

4. How have both parties expanded executive power?
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have used executive orders to bypass Congress. Obama famously said, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Trump declared, “I’m the president and you’re not” [citation:original text]. Examples include Biden’s student loan forgiveness (declared illegal) and Trump’s birthright citizenship ban (also struck down) [citation:original text]. Both administrations also used executive authority to impose AI export controls and trade tariffs .

5. What is the scale of the Trump family’s profiteering from the presidency?
A New Yorker investigation found that Donald Trump and his immediate family have made $3.4 billion from his time in the White House, including more than $2.3 billion from cryptocurrency ventures . A House Judiciary Committee report alleged the family built a crypto portfolio valued between $2.9 billion and $11.6 billion at peak prices, and that the White House now functions as the center of a new influence economy . The family’s crypto ventures include the $TRUMP memecoin ($300 million in fees), World Liberty Financial ($550 million in token sales, 75% of which flows to the Trump Organization), and a stablecoin business with a $2 billion investment from the UAE .

A Nation’s Pain and a Regime’s Secrets: The Earthquakes That Shook Venezuela and Exposed Its Rulers

By Mary Anastasia O’Grady
New Delhi, July 24, 2026

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello was seen on camera last week turning away an American rescue worker trying to reach a victim in the earthquake-stricken state of La Guaira. The video went viral, as did speculation about Mr. Cabello’s motives for blocking the emergency assistance [citation:original text].

Since then numerous international search and rescue teams have reported efforts by Venezuelan authorities to impede their work in certain buildings in an area of the country notorious for drug trafficking and money laundering by the dictatorship [citation:original text].

The confrontation, captured on video and widely circulated, showed Cabello—wearing a neon orange baseball hat—gesturing for the U.S. team to “back up, back to the truck” as the rescuer pleaded, “There’s someone right over there we’re trying to help! You don’t want us to help them?”  The rescuer later stated, “I’m not happy with this situation” . This was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of obstruction.

A Disastrous Response to a Double Catastrophe

On June 24, 2026, Venezuela was struck by twin earthquakes, magnitudes 7.2 and 7.5, that hit just seconds apart . The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that some 59,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed . The official death toll stands at over 1,750, though the UN has projected a figure closer to 10,000, and the opposition estimates 43,000 missing . The disaster has left an estimated 16,000 people homeless .

For acting President Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president who assumed power in January after the U.S. military captured Nicolás Maduro, this was a defining test of governance . She has largely failed it.

Instead of a coherent, centralized response, the military effort was hampered by delayed deployment orders, confusion over the chain of command, and shortages of essential equipment . One active-duty officer told Reuters, “We don’t act on our own; we receive direct orders… We didn’t have a plan… There was no plan for dealing with something like this” . The Marine Infantry Brigade was ready to deploy but never received instructions, while other units lacked vehicles, hammers, pickaxes, and helicopters equipped with night vision . Rescue workers on the ground were forced to improvise, as the country’s years of economic crisis had eroded operational readiness .

Why Block the Rescue Teams?

While the overall incompetence is a scandal, the deliberate obstruction of international rescue teams raises far more troubling questions. Why would a government block help for its own people during the critical “golden hours” for saving survivors? The answer lies in what the regime is trying to hide [citation:original text].

The Cartel’s Ground Zero: La Guaira is home to Venezuela’s second-largest seaport and the Simón Bolívar International Airport [citation:original text]. After devastating floods in 1999, Hugo Chávez rebuilt the area, then called Vargas, with hundreds of apartment blocks that became “ground zero for chavismo,” housing loyal paramilitary forces [citation:original text]. The state has long been a hub for moving drugs north to the U.S. and for smuggling and storing dollars collected on American streets [citation:original text].

Safe-Deposit Boxes and Cartel Loot: One rescue worker told the Washington Post that his team came across approximately 20 safe-deposit boxes in the basement of a collapsed building [citation:original text]. A neighbor informed him it was cartel loot [citation:original text]. While unconfirmed, such accounts explain why the regime might be desperate to control access.

The “Thug” with a Bounty: Cabello himself is a central figure in this narrative. He has been indicted in the Southern District of New York on narcoterrorism and firearm charges and conspiracy to import cocaine. In 2025, the U.S. raised the reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction to $25 million [citation:original text]. His role in blocking rescue teams is not just an act of bureaucratic incompetence; it is the conduct of a man who may fear what the rescue might uncover .

The US Bet: A Partnership with the Regime

The Trump administration’s partnership with this morally bankrupt government has been an embarrassment for months [citation:original text]. Even before the earthquakes, Mr. Trump was crowing about Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, lifting sanctions, cheering Chevron for pumping oil for the dictatorship, and clearing the way for Caracas to get market prices for its petroleum exports [citation:original text]. Despite the president’s claims that this had Venezuelans “dancing in the streets,” the reality is grim: nearly 400 political prisoners remain behind bars, and inflation for the 12 months ending in May was over 500% [citation:original text].

Opposition leader María Corina Machado, who is in exile, wants to run for president and has hoped for U.S. support to return. The Trump administration has told her to wait, prioritizing “stabilization and recovery” over a transition to democracy [citation:original text]. This decision is now being exposed as a catastrophic error that has enabled a dictatorship to obstruct life-saving aid.

A Crisis of Humanity

The tragedy in La Guaira is a stark reminder of the real-world cost of moral compromise. As the Chilean rescuer Francisco Fermanda said, “When international assistance is requested, there is usually flexibility regarding the entry and processing of rescue teams… because the priority is preserving lives” . The Rodriguez government has ignored this principle, sacrificing its citizens to protect the regime’s secrets. As one resident in La Guaira put it, “This is a shame. We need help, not politics” . The only appropriate response is to immediately arrest Cabello and his cronies, hold them to justice, and open the country to the humanitarian and political change that its people desperately need.

Q&A Section

1. What was the magnitude of the earthquakes and what was the human toll?

Venezuela was struck by twin earthquakes on June 24, 2026—a 7.2 magnitude quake followed 39 seconds later by a 7.5 magnitude tremor. The official death toll is over 1,750, though the UN is projecting a figure closer to 10,000, and opposition estimates suggest over 43,000 people are missing. Over 16,000 people have been left homeless.

2. How did the government respond to the crisis?

The government’s response was marked by confusion, delays, and a lack of resources. Military units were not mobilised quickly due to the absence of a clear disaster-response plan. There were shortages of essential equipment, including hammers, pickaxes, and helicopters. This confusion meant that much of the initial rescue work was carried out by civilians before international teams and a limited number of soldiers arrived.

3. Who is Diosdado Cabello and why is his role in blocking rescue teams significant?

Diosdado Cabello is Venezuela’s Minister of Interior, Justice and Peace. He is also a wanted man in the United States, with a $25 million bounty on his head for narco-terrorism and cocaine importation charges. A viral video showed him actively blocking an American rescue team from helping a trapped person. This is significant because his obstruction suggests he may be trying to protect something—potentially cartel loot or evidence of drug trafficking—from being uncovered by international investigators in the disaster zone.

4. Why did the US partnership with the Venezuelan government become controversial?

The Trump administration pursued a policy of partnership with the regime of acting President Delcy Rodríguez, lifting sanctions and allowing Chevron to pump oil. This was justified as a strategy for “stabilization and recovery.” However, the earthquake crisis exposed the regime’s corruption and incompetence, as it actively obstructed international aid. The administration also told opposition leader María Corina Machado to wait on a democratic transition, a decision that now appears to have been a mistake.

5. What evidence suggests the regime was trying to hide something in La Guaira?

La Guaira is a known hub for drug trafficking and money laundering. Rescue workers reported finding at least 20 safe-deposit boxes in the basement of a collapsed building. Reports of looting and shakedowns by military and police were widespread. The deliberate obstruction of international teams from specific buildings suggests a fear that investigations would uncover criminal evidence. The Washington Post also reported that international rescue teams were harassed and accused of being spies.