NBA - Home Of Basketball or Of Basketball Betting?

The NBA ship is lately hitting the choppy waters. The betting scandal that rocked the league a few months ago was quietly swept under the rug, with only a handful of arrests made so far. The federal investigation is still ongoing, and more indictments are expected. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver shed what appeared to be crocodile tears over the controversy, offering a feeble defense of the league’s internal probe—which somehow missed the blazing inferno even as the house burned down. The NBA had investigated certain players a couple of years earlier and cleared them of any wrongdoing. Yet those same players, along with a prominent coach, were later indicted by federal authorities for the very schemes the league had supposedly scrutinized. Silver’s excuse was laughable: He claimed the NBA lacks the sophistication and subpoena power of federal investigators, leading to a “clean chit” for the suspects. Or was it simply that the league didn’t care about rooting out betting irregularities, as long as it didn’t derail their push for legalized gambling?

Betting has plagued professional sports since their modern inception. It’s a vice that never remains contained, which is why gambling is banned in much of the world—or, where permitted, heavily taxed. It draws in shady operators, increasing the odds of match-fixing and corruption. In early 20th-century English football, betting was rampant, fueling scandals that tarnished the game. After all, who insists that sports or athletes must be paragons of ethics? It’s entertainment, proponents argue—as long as fans are thrilled, why peek behind the curtain at how the sausage is made? There are countless justifications for legalizing betting: Fixing is outlawed, patterns can be monitored, and government or third-party watchdogs can sniff out culprits. Sure, but can these safeguards be foolproof 100% of the time? If not, what slips through the cracks? How does it skew games or entire seasons? These are unknown unknowns, and sports can’t afford them. Without transparency, a league risks losing its popularity—or worse, its legitimacy. Consider the difference: WWE is wildly popular, but is it seen as legitimate? Does the NBA aspire to be a spectacle or a sport of integrity?

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has been a vocal advocate for sports betting on league games. In 2018, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, the NBA eagerly embraced legalized wagering. The league was already surging in popularity (and still is), with revenue streams—especially lucrative TV deals—pouring in billions. But greed knows no bounds. Team ownership was shifting, with valuations skyrocketing: Franchises once sold for hundreds of millions were now fetching billions. This attracted ultra-wealthy owners fixated on maximizing profits. Silver and these moguls formed a perfect storm, steering the NBA into murky waters where once-shady practices could be whitewashed as legitimate. The league has faced referee-fixing before—the 2007 Tim Donaghy scandal exposed how fragile the game’s integrity is, with countless variables ripe for exploitation. More recently, a Miami Heat security guard was convicted for stealing and selling worn jerseys of stars like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, pocketing hundreds of thousands in the black market. Was that his only hustle? Or did he also leak insider info—like player rotations—for spot bets? We may never know, but the question will always linger.

The NBA urges us to trust them, touting their detection systems for players potentially throwing games. Another common refrain: Athletes earn so much that the risks of betting far outweigh the rewards. Yet both arguments crumbled in recent years, as millionaire players and coaches were indicted anyway. What if those caught argue that if the league profits from betting, why can’t they?

Baseball’s steroid scandal in the early 2000s dealt a devastating blow to its popularity and viewership. It took nearly two decades for the sport to rebound—and even then, interest hasn’t fully recovered. Perhaps tastes have shifted, but it’s undeniable that the integrity crisis left permanent scars. When trust erodes, everything else becomes irrelevant. In its insatiable quest for revenue, the NBA is barreling toward a similar abyss—one that’s bad for the game, the players, and the fans. Does the league care enough about basketball’s soul to pump the brakes?

'Dhurandhar' Dhamaal - A Hindi Movie Masterpiece!

I began this final blog of the year planning to write about Rahul Gandhi and his decision to skip parliament. Honestly, I felt uninspired by the topic. However, after watching the Hindi movie 'Dhurandhar' yesterday, my entire perspective shifted. 'Dhurandhar' is a gripping political thriller that explores the intricate ties between terrorism, politics, and intelligence operations in India. The film struck a deep chord with me, evoking a sense of urgency and concern about the political landscape. Its powerful storytelling and raw depiction of events left me both moved and alarmed. It made me reflect on the stark realities of political decisions and reinforced my resolve not to vote for Rahul Gandhi or the Congress Party. How did we even survive the Manmohan Singh era?

The Plotline:

The plotline was not easy to present. The time period spans over a decade, and the movie covers some of the most bloody and inhumane acts of barbarity against India, including events inspired by the actual Kandahar hijacking and the gruesome 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The film also imagines mafia violence happening in Karachi intertwined with these occurrences. These events are woven into the perspective of a fictional Indian undercover operative who has deeply embedded himself into the unholy nexus of ISI, the Karachi underworld, and corrupt Indian politicians (at least, one of those politicians' names rhymes with 'findambaram'). This complex task was masterfully handled by Aditya Dhar, who directed and co-wrote the movie. As Indian political will steels up, Indian intelligence devises a desperate plan to safeguard its innocent civilians. Agencies plant Indian undercover operatives and set a long-term plan in motion. The film’s second part is already much anticipated.

Why does it work?

Simply put, the movie is outstanding. It’s subtle at times, but it goes all out during some fight scenes. While it has all the elements of a typical Hindi masala film, the filmmakers respect the audience’s intelligence. The script is layered but always clear. The violence is graphic, but it feels necessary. The story is based on real events, and I believe the actual events were even more brutal. Some critics quickly labeled the film as propaganda. I hadn’t heard much about it before the first trailer, but after seeing the backlash from certain groups, I suspected it would be impressive. If showing the harsh reality is propaganda, then so be it. The film succeeds both as a movie and in its message. It entertains while also highlighting the ongoing threat of Islamic religious extremism and the lack of political will to protect innocent people at the time. Particularly, the events of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack and the 2001 Parliament attack were skillfully shown. The usage of real-life footage, the humanization of innocents, as well as the security personnel who were killed, using real audio of a Pakistani handler directing terrorists in Mumbai after watching utterly shameful coverage of Indian media (ahem...the name that rhymes with ‘Darkha’!) cuts too deep. The jubilation shown by the perpetrators shows how the anti-India and anti-Hindu sentiment runs deeply within Pakistan. Kudos to Aditya Dhar for creating maximum impact on the audience.

The acting is excellent. Ranvir Sing combines star power with real talent. His presence is strong, and his expressions are powerful, especially in scenes where he regrets not being able to prevent the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The supporting cast is also impressive. Akshay Khanna deserves all the praise he’s getting. I was especially struck by Rakesh Bedi’s performance as a corrupt politician—it was a standout. The slimness of a politician is succinctly portrayed. I hope Rakesh Bedi wins some awards for it.

The movie could have been at least half an hour shorter. The love angle, though critical to the plotline, could have been cut a bit. The violent last fight was a bit unbelievable, especially since the movie, till then, had shown the violence quite masterfully. Sanjay Dutt's entry and his overall presence is bit distracting. His character is important and Sanjay Dutt does fit the role but somehow the impact wasn't as much as it should have been. On the Indian side, the intelligence apparatus could have been shown beyond Ajit Doval’s presence. Ajit Doval was (and is) critical to Indian intelligence, but I am sure there were individuals who played their role. The audience would have loved to know about them. Perhaps that will come in the second part.

Political implications: 

The movie draws on real events, such as the Kandahar hijacking during the Vajpayee government era. Then the series of bomb blasts and ghastly 26/11 Mumbai attack under Manmohan Singh (i.e., Sonia) era. The lack of political will to stand up to Islamic terrorism of the Vajpayee era quickly descended into the utterly corrupt politics of the Manmohan Singh era, leading to multiple terrorist attacks in India going completely unanswered by the government. The Manmohan Singh era, especially, was utterly hopeless and spineless. Internal Muslim appeasement vote bank politics actively interfered with India’s need to stand up to the Pakistani Islamic terrorism state machinery. Hundreds of lives were lost to the politics of Sonias, Digvijay, and Chidambarams of the ruling junta. How many more lives of the Indian armed forces or of Indian intelligence were lost to these anti-national politicians? We may never know. I just hope India never elects that political party or ever entertains the dangerous buffoonery of Rahul Gandhi. I generally disliked them for their dynastic incompetence and a track record of family-first, India-second politics. The film shows the actual events that tell me that I never want to vote for Congress or I never want Congress to ever come to power because these people will not think twice before handing over the country to Pakistan or to China if the price is right. It’s remarkable that the country survived the Manmohan Singh era as well as it did.

The job of any movie is to entertain first. If a filmmaker wants to send a message to society or highlight something critical to it, they have to do so only through the lens of entertainment. Balancing a message with entertainment is not easy. Dhurandhar is a rare Hindi movie that pulls this off successfully, and for that, the entire crew deserves great appreciation. It's worthwhile to consider how other Hindi films like 'Sarfarosh' and 'Border' have similarly managed this balance, delivering strong social messages while engaging the audience. Dhurandhar is certainly a worthy successor to such movies. 

The New Yorker at 100 - Falling in love all over again!

The documentary celebrating The New Yorker’s 100 years recently dropped on Netflix. Had I known it was in the making, I would have counted the days. Fortunately, I didn’t, so the joy of stumbling upon it in the listings was pure and indescribable.

I have been reading The New Yorker for the better part of two decades. I treasure its unique, diverse, and deeply informative articles, but my special love is reserved for the cartoons—the single-panel gags scattered throughout each issue. They are often razor-sharp on current politics, yet for me it’s the dark humor that lands hardest. In an age of heightened sensitivity, where insults are detected at warp speed, much that needs saying goes unsaid, and what is said too often feels banal. We don’t laugh enough at our social ills and idiosyncrasies. Laughter, after all, doesn’t have to degrade; sometimes it’s the only way to lighten the psychological weight of events that defy logic and years!

I remember my first encounter vividly. Back in New Jersey, I’d left my car with a mechanic and was trying to kill time in his waiting area. The mechanic, it turned out, was a kindred spirit: his office held stacks of old and new New Yorkers. I picked one up, flipped through, and landed on David Grann’s “The Lost City of Z.” I’d never read the magazine before, but I couldn’t stop. Between the long-form archaeology and history of El Dorado, the cartoon captions offered bursts of relief and delight. My plan had been to drop off the car and head home; instead, I stayed until I’d finished the entire piece. That article didn’t just introduce me to forgotten histories—it opened the door to an experience where, like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’ll get next.

I usually skip “Shouts & Murmurs”—its satire doesn’t quite resonate with me. “Goings On About Town” was essential when I lived in the area. “The Talk of the Town” remains a must-read for its topical variety and crisp briefing on key issues, especially in the American political landscape. I rarely miss “Briefly Noted” in the book reviews, or the longer pieces that weave a deep dive into a subject through reviews of two or three related books. Some are dense enough to feel like a weekly PhD thesis. The magazine executes this format masterfully, aiming not just to inform but to equip readers with the perspective to think independently—a noble mission, especially as we enter an era where AI-generated content threatens that very ability. (Though a recent piece musing that AI might soon achieve consciousness was, I thought, rather wide of the mark.)

Every long-form essay lands differently depending on how one connects with it. For me, the foreign-affairs pieces stand out. The in-depth reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan should be required reading in universities. Beyond on-the-ground journalism, the magazine excels at weaving history into current events—reminding us that today’s shadows are cast by the past. Amitav Ghosh’s piece on Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army and the Bengali communists in Burma astonished me, as these articles so often do. Age brings a certain jadedness, the sense that nothing can surprise anymore, but The New Yorker regularly proves otherwise. It catches you off-guard, rekindling curiosity. One never knows what the next issue holds—perhaps an essay on frogs, or V.S. Naipaul reflecting on his craft (or Paul Theroux reflecting on Naipaul) or the essay called 'Emotional Baggage' musings on troubles of packing, the different types of baggage and philosophical musing on the entire exercise experience. Such pieces remind us how fascinating the life can be and, humbling the world remains.

The documentary lives up to its billing—to an extent. Placing The New Yorker as the subject rather than the observer is a tricky proposition; it’s an ocean of individual reader experiences. The documentary attempts to distill this essence and largely succeeds, chronicling the run-up to the centenary issue while touching on the magazine’s history, eliteness, occasional snobbery, and endearing eccentricities. It does an admirable job, yet I wished for deeper exploration of the editorial process: how topics and writers are chosen, and the worldview that shapes what appears on the page. Not just celebration (of which there is plenty to celebrate), but a spotlight on the magazine’s soul—including its persistent warnings about the erosion of democratic values. The bias the magazine editors sometimes blithely display is as surprising as it is bewildering. Fundamentalism of opposite spectrum always meet like a circle. Bush administration frothed at mouth talking about 'planting' democracy in Iraq. Though the magazine has been a constant critic of that administration, The New Yorker, one can argue, is guilty of looking at political events of non-western (i.e. non-white world!) through 'American democracy' lenses. Of course, no publication is obliged to be right or mature on every front. Not all chocolates in the box are well prepared!

I doubt the founders ever imagined their upstart weekly would endure a full century, evolving with the times yet fiercely guarding its witty, curious soul—a cornerstone of beautiful writing, independent thinking, and just the right hint of humor. I am sure they will be pleased if they are to magically appear today.

Watching the film felt like stumbling upon another unexpected treasure in a mechanic’s stack of back issues. Here’s to The New Yorker: may the next hundred years surprise, challenge, and delight us just as unpredictably.

The Crown - How Netflix Is Making Us Root For The Colonist!

To say The Crown on Netflix is engaging is quite an understatement. It is a wonderfully crafted piece of art that takes us into the corridors of palaces and the lives of people who, otherwise, would be almost invisible to us. Although the lives of the British royal family have been well-documented over the last few decades, especially during the era of Princess Diana, this historical drama does an excellent job of humanizing members of the British royal family. It makes us empathize with them. As a viewer, you wonder what you would do facing similar circumstances? How would you deal with the news of your father's passing when you also knew he was a chain smoker throughout his life? One feels sympathy for the royals, knowing they also go through mundane life events like birth, death, heartbreak, jealousy, and the whole gamut of life's experiences in between. For any writer, actor, director, or show/movie creator, isn't that the pinnacle of success?

Obviously, the show is based on real events and on real characters. The events these royals faced, as portrayed in the episodes, are mundane. The love of Prince Charles for Camilla, for example. Or, Phillip being a harsh father to his son, or the Queen's sister feeling overshadowed (or useless!). Or the newest daughter-in-law blazing brighter than all the current and previous royals combined, or the sons and daughters going through divorces and then finding new partners. These are all common problems. I am not trying to take away the intensity of sorrow felt after deaths, or the jealousy felt after being sidelined, or feeling underappreciated after being overlooked. These are genuine human emotions, and whether you live on the edge of financial ruin or are a Queen with hundreds of servants at your disposal, the everyday travails of existence are shared by everyone. But as great a show as it was, it is nothing but a masterpiece of emotional manipulation that somehow transforms war enablers and colonial beneficiaries into tragic figures, it is a fantasy that the showrunners are selling that the family that once ruled quarter of humanity by unleashing violence of massive proportion and extraction, is at heart just like us, with lots of Rolls Royces's.

To say the history of current British royals is as sordid would be an understatement. I am referring to historical events or personalities that are well-documented and widely known. I am sure there is a lot more - 1/7th of the iceberg, that is still hidden from public records. There is fraud and deceit at multiple levels. The forefathers of the current dynasty ruled over the largest empire in human history. Though their names (Queen Victoria, especially!) are still stuck on a variety of locations or monuments across the world, somehow they (Queen Victoria, again!) get a pass for the horrific crimes her empire unleashed on the world. Be it the genocidal frenzy against the local black population of Africa or the 'Winston'-made (Churchill, that is!) famine killing millions in Bengal under the 'motherly' watch of the King. The royals were always kept above this 'empire' crimes as if they were the innocent, blameless child of it, while happily displaying the Kohinoor in their tiara.

Then at the family level, the current King's grand-uncle, Edward VIII, himself a king for barely a year, was a NAZI enthusiast. However, we are to believe that Edward was the only and literally, the only person from that family who was a NAZI sympathizer? Did he grow up in a vacuum, away from the family? The other royals may not be NAZIs, but they all were a Grade A racist and eugenicist lot for sure. There is a great scene in The Crown where Queen Elizabeth is aghast to find out that her Uncle, Edward VIII, not only abdicated but then actively worked towards NAZI goals. The acting and script in that particular sequence are top-notch. Still, one has to wonder how she would need her secretary to inform her about her Uncle's activities. I mean, the said Uncle wasn't much of a clandestine person anyway.

And then we have a fraud narrative at the individual level. The royals are nothing but the personality created and delivered to us to make the subjects fond of them and proud of them. The travails and difficulties these royals faced are dramatized in movies for our entertainment. And we do consume it rather voraciously. Some of these movies are truly outstanding. The movie The King's Speech was an excellent movie with impeccable acting and a script worthy of an Oscar. But if we look a bit deeper into the narrative, a second in line for the Crown was dealing with stuttering and panic/anxiety attacks throughout his life. And then, to make matters worse, he was thrust into the kingship. So, we are to applaud his most significant achievement during his - King George VI's, tenure: giving speeches to his war-torn nation without stuttering. I know critics will point out that the King refused to evacuate London during German bombing. Tens of millions of people were killed during World War II, and tens of millions more died fighting the war, and the King of a country ruling half of the world was fighting to overcome his stuttering and staying put in his plush palace? Does that make sense? It's a travesty!

Even Queen Elizabeth herself had never had to make any serious, accountable decisions beyond those affecting her family. The British royals have been reduced merely to 'Stamps' for centuries now. Any individual without accountability and goals is worthless. The case in point was the Queen herself. Her long tenure also cannot, in strictest terms, be celebrated since it's God who gave her a long life. She could have made a significant impact had she retired at a logical age and allowed her son to take over and 'rule' for a meaningful period. 

Similarly, the life of Princess Diana is celebrated as if she should be an inspiration to young women. I am sorry, but what was special about her? She came from the aristocracy and married up, an aspiration and common practice among the British aristocracy. Her marriage wasn't happy, and she eventually divorced. She had multiple affairs between her divorce proceedings and her sad demise. After her separation from Charles, Diana associated herself with various worthy causes and provided photo opportunities. She even hugged an AIDS child. In short, she attempted to empathize with and humanize the masses that her family, both aristocratic and royal, had mercilessly exploited for centuries. Is that it? So, we bring the bar almost to the ground so we can celebrate Dinae. She was an OG of modern-day 'influencer', mostly worthless but still very popular. We can credit Diana for playing her role in nurturing absolutely toxic and corrosive 'tabloid' journalism.

But the show must go on. Somehow, the government of Great Britain sees a need to maintain the Royals, who at this point are nothing but unaccountable aristocrats stumbling from scandal to scandal. The British populace also overwhelmingly supports the monarchy. We feel bad when the Queen weeps over her corgis while her empire actively tries to dehumanize black Africans in their own country. We are to applaud the King for overcoming stuttering while his empire purposefully starved millions to death by diverting food away from the famine. And the historical drama may be pretty entertaining and engaging, but it is nothing but the longest-running propaganda campaign delivered to us in 4K. The real Crown isn't made of diamonds but of denials. 

Happy Birthday, Modi ji!

(All rights of the image are with pngtree.com) 

India's Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi, recently achieved two milestones. First, he turned 75 (Happy birthday, sir!), and second, he completed 25 years either as a Chief Minister or a Prime Minister. Turning 75 healthy is an achievement worth celebrating. Despite severe pressure from various quarters, Modi ji is still cruising comfortably. But his turning 75 is not ordinary, and I am not talking about his achievements as a Chief Minister or as a Prime Minister. He has been an RSS Swayamsevak and then a full-time Pracharak for almost 60 years. He has truly risen from the ground up. Modi ji has travelled across India like very few people in recent times. He has seen society very closely.  He has tirelessly worked to improve the lives of the masses as a Pracharak. And when needed, picked up critical issues like hoisting the Indian Tricolor in the Lal Chowk in Srinagar. Given the current situation in Kashmir, the young generation may find it hard to believe that in the 1980s it was virtually impossible even to hoist India's flag in Kashmir. Taking that as a challenge, he worked closely under the leadership of senior BJP leader Mr. Murali Manohar Joshi to march towards Srinagar and hoist the tricolor. This sort of courage comes from conviction and belief in ideology, as well as from putting ideology above self-interest. 

His tenure in administration is also impressive. Apart from Mr. Nehru, Mr. Modi is the only Prime Minister to be elected to the office for three consecutive terms. He is also the only non-Congress Prime Minister to have been elected twice with an absolute majority. Currently, he is the third-longest-serving Prime Minister in India; by the time he completes his current five-year term, he will be the second-longest-serving Prime Minister.

The Gandhi family held the position of Prime Minister for such an extended period that many would have thought it impossible for anyone outside their family to reach such political milestones. However, when in power, Mr. Modi is no stranger to achieving significant milestones; he was the longest-serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. 

These accomplishments are remarkable, especially when we consider the size and complexity of India and its electoral politics.

Mr. Modi's leadership over the last 11 years, along with the subsequent 4 years, will be remembered for much more than just electoral successes. His influence on India's politics, economy, foreign policy, policymaking, Lok Sabha dynamics, and party politics is so significant that it may take several decades for people to fully grasp the extent of his impact. The only other politician who comes close to this level of influence is Mrs. Indira Gandhi. However, unlike Mr. Modi, Mrs. Gandhi's tenure was marked by widespread corruption in governance, economic difficulties, highly personalized politics, and divisiveness, resulting in adverse economic and social outcomes for India.

We have at least another 4 years of Modi government. His political party has grown strong, but India votes for larger-than-life personalities, and the BJP currently has none after Modi ji. The elections of 2029 will be dramatic. Though the good work in governance, infrastructure development, and international relations continues in the third Modi term, the hubris is setting in. There seems to be inertia to interacting with people. Lack of any credible voice beyond Modi ji will prove to be a formidable electoral problem for BJP in the near future. But that's in the future. We can and should celebrate Modi ji's achievements in present. 

Happy birthday, Modi ji! 

Ye "Vote Chori" kya hai...ye "Vote Chori"?

The latest rabble-rousing controversy from Rahul Gandhi is far more nefarious than it may seem. The general modus operandi of his is quite a pattern. Wake up before any election, start a controversy, talk haughtily in front of cameras, and post election results, which tend to go against him and his party, and vanish to some foreign land for a vacation. He has been repeating this since the year 2014. Rahul and his party did get success time to time, but overall, he and his party have failed to meet the standards of a good opposition party. They failed to raise the valid issues or the concerns people are facing. Moreover, they failed to come up with or provide sensible solutions to the problems, to counter the government. However, the key difference this time is that Rahul Gandhi is not targeting the government or Mr. Modi ji or the BJP. Instead, he is aiming for the Election Commission of India, an impartial governmental institution that has been holding elections, large or small, successfully for more than 70 years. A few plays are unfolding here. However, they all point in one direction  - Is Rahul Gandhi acting on someone's behalf? 

1) Issues raised - Rahul Gandhi provided data on a variety of seats that Congress or his allies lost (along with, as far as I know, one seat that Congress won) and claimed that fake voters. Rahul Gandhi launched his latest attack after the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducted a door-to-door review and verification of voters in Bihar, discovering that nearly 6.5 million voter names should be deleted. As a Leader of the Opposition and head of a national party, he has a variety of options to question the voter deletion exercise. The exercise ECI conducted, in itself, is constitutional and valid. But Rahul Gandhi and his Congress party can challenge the findings in the Supreme Court. Or can they request an official meeting with the ECI to point out the mistakes? ECI may have made a mistake, and they can make amends. Instead of any of that, Rahul Gandhi decided to hit the streets? Classic shoot and scoot! We can make a logical argument that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party are attempting to garner public attention and sway the voters through this controversy. That brings us to the second point. 

2) Is the Congress party a player in Bihar? - The answer, so far, is no. The party is on the fringe for the most extended period. The party has been a junior member of Lalu Prasad Yadav's RJD for longer than that. The last time Congress won the election in Bihar was in 1985. Since then, they have been on a decline. Their best performance in the last 25 years was in the year 2000 when they won 29 seats. This time's elections do not paint much of a rosy picture for the party either. Even if they win more seats than the last time, it is likely to be because of RJD. Instead of raising grassroots-level workers in Bihar, Rahul Gandhi is out talking about an issue that is unlikely to resonate with the ordinary voters in Bihar. The other so-called frauds that Rahul Gandhi insinuated are in the states that do not have any elections due anytime soon. In short, this controversy will not give any gains to Rahul Gandhi or the Congress party. Then why do it?

3) Some nefarious design? -  No one can say Rahul Gandhi doesn't travel. He travels all the time and everywhere, especially to foreign lands after his election defeats. After every major electoral defeat, he heads to some Western nation or a university in some Western country and then criticizes India. He badmouths the current government, he badmouths the policies of the Indian government, and as if that is not enough, he badmouths India. The democracy is in danger, secularism is in danger, minorities are in danger, everyone is in danger, and the only hope is himself and his party. The obvious question is, why does he do that? Speaking about India or the policies of the Indian government in foreign countries does not bring him any votes at best. The educated class in India may get alienated by this behavior. There are enough enemies of India, inside and outside, the so-called ".5" front that would not like to see India progressing and getting stronger. Rahul Gandhi pitched a harsh battle against India acquiring fighter jets. He never speaks about increasing infrastructure in India, and the only thing he proposes is more and more reservations. After questioning the government, which he is allowed to do to an extent, he is after democratic government institutions. Why? It is not wrong to wonder if Rahul Gandhi is doing this on someone's behalf? Because otherwise none of his doings make any sense. While the things he is attempting to do are all quite dangerous to India. 

By the time I finish this blog, the voters-related controversy was nose-diving to its demise. The agency that provided the data to Rahul Gandhi was backing out of all the claims. The so-called influencer who howled in unison with Rahul Gandhi is quietly taking down their videos. The newspapers and the news websites are no longer showing this as a headline. However, the awful, pukish aftertaste of Rahul Gandhi's tirade will continue for some more time. 

When the False Bravado Meet B-2s!

I started writing this blog when there was a fear of a potential nuclear specter during the Iran-Israel conflict. By the time I finished a couple of paragraphs, the conflict was over. It was disappointing. Did the attack destroy Iran's nuclear facility? Did it teach a lesson to Iran's Islamic regime? We may never know. 

Iran's Islamic theocracy has been trying to position itself as the voice of all Muslims across the world. They have been supporting a variety of terrorist organizations, especially against Israel. The Iranian regime has been openly advocating war against Israel and the US. War with these two nations has been a central tenet of Iran's Islamic theocracy for decades. The simple probability will tell you that if Iran keeps daring Israel or the US to attack, the attack will happen at some point in time. 

The world does not need another war. But it is hard to dodge the inevitable. The military strikes may not lead to nuclear defanging of Iran. My point is, Iran has been inviting bulls to their china shop. 

The attack on Iran was a foregone conclusion after the gruesome Oct 7th attack on Israel. It took longer since Israel created a checklist, and Iran's name was towards the end, if not the last. Israel has been checking off names for a while now. Israel's initial targets were Iranian proxies. First, they almost (for now) annihilated Hamas, then they systematically dismantled Hezbollah. During all this, Israel worked with the US in getting rid of the Assad family from Syria and also liberating Lebanon from a Syrian stronghold. During the last hours of Assad's rule in Syria, Iranian military and intelligence assets in Syria packed their bags and left in haste before the 'rebels' deposed the Assad regime. Iran, now, does not have any assets left in and around Israel. It will not be surprising if Israel takes over parts of Gaza and makes it an Israeli territory. Iran has been assiduously building their network around Israel for decades and has spent billions of dollars in doing so. And all that was dismantled in a couple of years! Perhaps, we give too much credit to the Ayatollahs of Iran. They are not that smart! 

Just like Pakistan, Iran will not lie low for long. These Islamic regimes and the ideology survive on confrontation. It thrives on having enemies, even if they are imaginary. Iran is lucky that Israel is not going anywhere. So, the Iranian theocracy can continue with its animosity. But for the rational observers of international affairs, it was fun to watch the Ayatollah's false bravado and war mongering slapped into sense by a couple of B-2s and a parked USS Nimitz!