Naming the Tempest, Can a Storm Called ‘Chandra’ Herald the Winds of Change in a World Gone Adrift?
As an unseasonably wet and windy September grips England, a nation wearily accustomed to drizzle finds itself contemplating more than just the impending “clag of winter.” The storms of this autumn, following a record-hot, dry summer, are not merely meteorological events; they have become cultural signifiers. The intriguing novelty lies in their names. Among the predictable roster of ‘Eddies,’ ‘Erins,’ and ‘Daves’—names that echo in British schoolyards and pubs—appears a starkly different one: ‘Chandra’. This Sanskrit word for the moon, a celestial body that gently influences tides and brightens the night, now lends its name to a violent tempest. This incongruity is more than a curiosity; it is a potent symbol. In a world buffeted by the gales of regression, bigotry, and ecological collapse, the naming of a British storm ‘Chandra’ feels like a small but significant act of defiance—a question mark against the status quo. Can such a storm, in fact, herald the good winds of change?
This question unfolds against a backdrop of profound global pessimism. The author, Shreys Sen-Handley, paints a picture of a world where the “winds of change” have been corrupted. They are no longer the hopeful gusts that inspired anthems like The Scorpions’ 1990 hit, which celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall and a future of brotherhood. Instead, they have become “globe-engulfing gusts of poisonous gases” emanating from the likes of Donald Trump and his “monstrous minions.” These are winds that blow towards “bigoted, self-serving ends,” undermining climate action, annihilating human rights, and hastening what the author starkly terms “ecological Armageddon.” The essay forces us to confront a chilling paradox: at the very moment scientific consensus demands radical, collective action to avert catastrophe, the political and social currents in many Western democracies are pulling fiercely in the opposite direction.
The Symbolism of ‘Chandra’: A Challenge to Cultural Conservatism
The significance of the name ‘Chandra’ in the UK’s storm-naming roster cannot be overstated. Britain, as Sen-Handley astutely observes, is “painfully conservative with names.” The cultural landscape is dominated by a cyclical return to royal and traditional names—George and Lily, harking back to Prince George and Queen Elizabeth’s pet name, Lilibet. This is more than mere preference; it is a form of “ancestor worship,” a deep-seated resistance to cultural evolution that reinforces a specific, monolithic national identity.
In this context, to bestow a Sanskrit name—a name rooted in the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Indian subcontinent—upon a force of nature that will dominate British weather reports is a quiet revolution. It is a portent of a more inclusive, multicultural Britain asserting itself within the very fabric of daily life. It moves beyond the tokenism of a food festival or a cultural month and embeds diversity into the lexicon of the commonplace. The storm ‘Chandra’ becomes a metaphor for the inevitable, and sometimes disruptive, integration of new influences into an old society. It signals that the British identity is not a static relic but a living, evolving entity, enriched by the winds—and the names—blown in from other shores.
This act stands in stark contrast to another, more famous, episode of British institutional resistance to popular will: the Boaty McBoatface affair. In 2016, when the public was invited to name a polar research ship, the overwhelming and humorous choice was ‘Boaty McBoatface’. The “stuffed shirts in government,” however, deemed this irreverent display of public wit unsuitable, overruling the democratic vote to name the vessel RRS Sir David Attenborough. The incident perfectly encapsulates the establishment’s fear of genuine, bottom-up change. It prefers a controlled, venerable tradition (even one named after a deservedly beloved figure) over an organic, popular, and playful expression of modern culture. The naming of ‘Chandra’, by a presumably more enlightened meteorological body, suggests a chink in this armour of conservatism.
The Ill Winds: The Global Context of Regression
To understand the potential hope embedded in a name, one must first appreciate the depth of the despair against which it is set. Sen-Handley’s essay does not shy away from cataloging the “lethal gales” that have blown the world off its “naturally altruistic axis.”
-
Climate Crisis Denial: At a time when the evidence for human-caused climate change is overwhelming, powerful political movements, particularly on the right, actively deny the science. This is not passive ignorance but an active “undermining of international efforts” that Sen-Handley rightly links to our collective hastening toward extinction. The storms themselves, growing more frequent and intense, are symptoms of the very problem these movements refuse to address.
-
The Erosion of Human Dignity: The essay points to a global decay in human rights, where atrocities are committed with impunity. The specific mention of the “gemocide in Gaza” highlights a world where powerful nations can enable the “detention, deportation, torture, starvation, and slaughter” of populations without facing meaningful “restraints or reprisals.” This creates a chilling normalisation of violence and a corrosion of international law.
-
Rampant Inequality: The system is rigged. The author notes the “vicious racism and sexism” faced by the marginalised daily, while wealth is systematically funneled into the pockets of billionaires. This money, the essay argues, could otherwise “house, feed, clothe, and educate the impoverished millions” buckling under a “shiny sham of a politico-economic system.”
These are not isolated issues but interconnected symptoms of a world order that has lost its moral compass. The “winds of change” have been captured by forces of nihilism and greed, making the prospect of a positive future seem distant indeed.
Anchors of Hope: Where Change Still Blows
Despite this bleak panorama, the essay is not a surrender notice. It is a call to action. Sen-Handley argues that the battle is “not irredeemably lost” and points to alternative currents of change embodied by specific individuals and movements.
The mention of Greta Thunberg and New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is significant. Thunberg represents the global, youth-led demand for climate justice, a force of moral clarity that stands in direct opposition to the “climate catastrophe-denying” establishment. Zohran Mamdani, notably the son of Indian filmmaker Mira Nair, represents a new wave of political activism that seeks to address systemic inequality from within the halls of power. These figures, and the countless “grassroots leaders of progressive, sustainable living” across the planet, are the ones charting a different course.
The essay makes a crucial distinction here: we do not need to personally idolise these figures. The imperative is to rally around their “urgent causes.” This shifts the focus from personality cults to collective action, from passive admiration to active support.
Becoming the Change: From Being Buffeted to Directing the Gale
The most powerful idea in the essay is its concluding challenge. It dismisses the fatalism of astrology—the idea that our “birth-month” dictates our destiny—and instead champions human agency. In a world where we feel “haplessly, despairingly, buffeted” by forces beyond our control, from real stars to “trumpery” ones, the answer is not to surrender.
The invocation of Gandhi’s maxim, “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is the essay’s central thesis. It is a call for personal and collective transformation. Instead of merely lamenting the ill winds, we must ourselves become the “winds of positive, constructive change.” This is not a passive hope for better weather, but an active decision to create a different climate altogether—a climate of justice, inclusion, and sustainability.
The storm ‘Chandra’, therefore, is a multifaceted metaphor. It is a symbol of the disruptive yet necessary force of multicultural inclusion. It is a reminder of the literal, worsening storms of the climate crisis. And ultimately, it is a challenge. Will we, like the British government in the Boaty McBoatface affair, cling to a sinking ship of outdated traditions and destructive policies? Or will we embrace the changing currents, support the new navigators, and learn to steer ourselves, becoming the very storm of change we wish to see in the world? The wind is named. The question is, in which direction will we sail?
Q&A Section
Q1: Why is the naming of a storm ‘Chandra’ in the UK considered significant by the author?
A1: The name ‘Chandra’ is significant because it challenges Britain’s deeply ingrained cultural conservatism. In a nation that favours traditional, often royal-inspired names like George and Lily, the use of a Sanskrit word for the moon represents a move towards a more inclusive and multicultural national identity. It embeds a non-Western cultural reference into the very fabric of British daily life—the weather forecast—signaling a positive, if subtle, evolution away from a monolithic view of Britishness.
Q2: How does the “Boaty McBoatface” incident illustrate the author’s point about institutional resistance to change?
A2: The “Boaty McBoatface” incident of 2016, where the public voted overwhelmingly to give a polar research ship this humorous name, is a prime example of the establishment’s fear of bottom-up, populist change. The government overruled the democratic vote, deeming the result unsuitable, and imposed the more traditional name RRS Sir David Attenborough. This demonstrated a preference for controlled, venerable tradition over organic, popular expression, highlighting the “stuffed shirt” conservatism that resists the winds of change.
Q3: According to the article, how have the “winds of change” been corrupted in the modern era?
A3: The essay argues that the hopeful “winds of change” that symbolized freedom and unity in the late 20th century (like in The Scorpions’ song about the fall of the Berlin Wall) have been corrupted. Today, they are described as “globe-engulfing gusts of poisonous gases” driven by right-wing, populist figures like Donald Trump. These modern gales blow towards “bigoted, self-serving ends,” including climate crisis denial, the annihilation of human rights, and the undermining of international cooperation, thereby hastening ecological and social collapse.
Q4: Beyond the symbolism of the storm’s name, where does the author find hope for positive change?
A4: The author finds hope in individuals and movements that represent alternative, constructive currents. These include climate activist Greta Thunberg, who embodies the global demand for climate justice, and political figures like Zohran Mamdani, who work within the system to address inequality. The author also points to countless grassroots leaders promoting progressive and sustainable living. The key is not to idolize these individuals personally, but to rally behind their urgent causes.
Q5: What is the ultimate call to action presented in the article?
A5: The ultimate call to action is for individuals to stop feeling like helpless victims of external forces (“buffeted by the stars”) and to instead become active agents of change. Citing Gandhi’s adage, “Be the change you want to see in the world,” the author urges readers to personally embody the “winds of positive, constructive change.” This means moving beyond despair and passive observation to actively supporting progressive causes and working to create a more just, inclusive, and sustainable world.
