The Rise of AAP and Fall of P'AAP!

The recent collapse in AAP’s fortunes is both ironic and deeply satisfying. What began as a seemingly unstoppable “aam aadmi” revolution has unraveled with remarkable speed. Delhi, once its impregnable fortress, fell decisively in the February 2025 assembly elections. The party was reduced to just 22 seats out of 70, with Arvind Kejriwal himself losing from New Delhi to BJP’s Parvesh Verma. BJP stormed back to power in the capital after 27 years. Then, in April 2026, came another body blow: seven of AAP’s ten Rajya Sabha MPs, including prominent faces like Raghav Chadha and Swati Maliwal, merged with the BJP. The party that once positioned itself as the clean, principled alternative now looks like a crumbling edifice.

This is not mere electoral misfortune. It feels like the systematic dismantling of a political project that rose by weaponizing public anger but ultimately betrayed the very ideals it claimed to champion.

The Rise: Tapping into Genuine Rage — With an Orchestrated Touch?

In the early 2010s, India was simmering with discontent. The UPA-II government under Manmohan Singh was mired in massive corruption scandals — 2G, coal, CWG — policy paralysis, high inflation, and frequent terror incidents. Public trust in the system had hit rock bottom. Arvind Kejriwal skillfully rode this wave. Aligning first with Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement, he projected himself as the earnest activist. The protests were energetic, well-organized, and unusually well-funded for a grassroots effort. In hindsight, the AAP’s rapid rise — even before it formally adopted the name — bears an uncanny resemblance to the timelines and choreography of the Arab Spring movements, which were widely rumored to have received backing from Western intelligence agencies and foundations to destabilize regimes. Kejriwal’s own NGOs had received funding from organizations like the Ford Foundation, and he was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2006. While AAP has always dismissed such links as baseless and aimed at supporting RTI work, the pattern of lavish resources, slick media management, and a perfectly timed anti-corruption storm raises legitimate questions. Was this entirely an organic outpouring of public frustration, or was there an element of external orchestration at play — similar to how certain color revolutions and regime-change movements have been supported abroad? The sudden flush of cash, the disciplined messaging, and Kejriwal’s swift pivot from activist to politician suggest it may not have been a purely indigenous phenomenon.

Whatever the backstage support (if any), Kejriwal tapped into real anger masterfully. He soon broke away, formed the Aam Aadmi Party, and promised a new kind of politics — transparent, accountable, and free from dynasties and corruption.

The timing was perfect. In Delhi and later Punjab, voters were exhausted by Congress and regional parties’ hubris and scandals. AAP swept to power in Delhi in 2015 and 2020, and achieved a landslide in Punjab in 2022. For a while, it seemed like a genuine people’s movement. But cracks appeared early. Kejriwal quickly sidelined original allies — the Bhushans, Yogendra Yadav, and even Anna Hazare faded from the scene. Promises were abandoned with ease: “We will not form a political party,” “We are not hungry for power,” “We will never compromise on principles.” What followed was classic power politics, complete with purges and the installation of loyalists.

The Paap: Hypocrisy and Overreach

Once in power, governance often took a backseat to confrontation and ambition. AAP’s signature style became relentless fights with the Lieutenant Governor, the Centre, and anyone who disagreed. The “holier than thou” image began to crack under allegations of financial irregularities, especially the controversial Delhi excise policy. Enforcement Directorate probes have also highlighted irregularities in foreign donations received by the party between 2014 and 2022.

Particularly damaging were certain political choices that crossed personal and national red lines:
• Kejriwal’s attempt to drag Prime Minister Modi’s wife into election rhetoric was crude and counterproductive. It added nothing substantive but revealed a willingness to stoop low for headlines.
• After the 2016 Uri surgical strikes, Kejriwal’s statements — offering a “salute” to the Army while immediately demanding “proof” in a manner that echoed Pakistani talking points — eroded the credibility he once enjoyed among middle-class voters. At a time when national security sentiment was high, this came across as opportunistic.

Kejriwal’s ambition always seemed national, yet his party struggled to expand meaningfully beyond Delhi and Punjab. The reliance on drama, freebies, and centralized control around one man created structural weaknesses.

The Reckoning

Hubris eventually invited downfall. The liquor policy case became a symbol of how far the party had strayed from its founding promises. Central agencies moved in, several top leaders faced arrest, and Kejriwal was forced to step down as Chief Minister. His attempt to install his wife as a proxy, reminiscent of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s tactics, failed to impress voters.In the 2025 Delhi elections, the people delivered a clear verdict. Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other heavyweights lost. The “Delhi model” that was once sold aggressively no longer convinced enough voters. The recent exodus of seven Rajya Sabha MPs to the BJP in April 2026 has further exposed the hollowness — when power and positions vanish, loyalty evaporates. Legal proceedings in the excise policy case continue, with Kejriwal recently refusing to appear before the Delhi High Court, citing lack of faith in the process. The Modi-Shah duo appears to have treated AAP not just as a political rival but as a force that needed to be neutralized at every level — electorally, legally, and organizationally. Whether one calls it strategic mastery or vendetta, the result is the same: AAP’s national relevance has been severely diminished.

Lessons for Voters and Politicians

AAP’s story is a textbook case of what happens when a party built on anti-corruption rhetoric succumbs to the same sins it once condemned. It exploited the genuine frustration of the 2010s middle class and aspirational voters, only to deliver theatrics, internal dictatorship, and questionable governance in return. If external influences helped accelerate its rise, the eventual fall shows that Indian voters and institutions ultimately prioritize accountability over imported narratives. Indian voters have shown maturity. They rewarded AAP when it felt fresh; they punished it when the mask slipped. This should serve as a warning to all political parties: charisma and slogans have limits. Delivery, integrity, and humility matter in the long run.

As for Kejriwal’s future — with Delhi lost, legal cases lingering, and key leaders defecting, the party’s national project looks severely wounded. Punjab remains its last major bastion, but even there, performance will be tested in the coming years.

The systematic weakening of AAP carries a clear message: In Indian democracy, no one is untouchable. Parties that forget they serve the people rather than their own messianic ambitions eventually pay the price — regardless of who may have helped them rise.
What comes next for the remnants of AAP? Can it reinvent itself as a credible regional force in Punjab, or will it fade into another footnote of Indian political history — a bright spark that burned out due to its own contradictions?
The coming years will tell. But one thing is certain: the “aam aadmi” deserves better than what AAP ultimately delivered.

The Current Iran Conflict - The No-Endgame Game!

The ongoing Iran conflict—whether we call it a limited war or something more escalating—isn’t entirely surprising in hindsight. The timing does raise eyebrows, as some argue the U.S. establishment, amid domestic controversies like the Epstein saga, might have escalated to divert public attention. That theory has a certain plausibility, but rather than dwelling on why the U.S. and Israel might have initiated or intensified hostilities, let’s shift perspective: What has driven Iran to pursue confrontation for decades? More intriguingly, what endgame do the Iranian mullahs envision, regardless of the war’s outcome?

The 1979 Islamic Revolution rested on two pillars: religious faith and deep-seated enmity toward the United States (and, by extension, Israel). The faith-based element, however irrational it may seem to outsiders, has historical precedents. Many countries in the Islamic world—especially those founded on religious zealotry—claim to uphold Islamic values and protect Muslims. Some, like Turkey, draw on imperial legacies. These nations often band together in forums like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to advance shared geopolitical and strategic interests against non-Islamic powers. Beneath the surface of religious fervor, however, most maintain pragmatic dealings with the wider world. Trade has no religion, and the non-Islamic world remains dominant. Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the UAE have thrived by adopting sound economic policies, attracting talent, and pursuing rational foreign relations. Even Turkey, despite its assertive Islamic rhetoric, aligns with NATO and sees itself as part of Europe.

Iran’s mullahs, however, chose a radically different path—one that has led straight to the current, seemingly unwinnable confrontation.

Iran’s leadership blends intense Shiite religious zealotry with a sense of historical destiny rooted in Iran’s pre-Islamic Persian heritage. (As an aside, Iran was a Sunni state till 17th century when it made a drastic shift towards Shiasm) While the ancient civilization boasts genuine achievements, the mullahs cannot credibly claim direct lineage to that glory. They selectively invoke the past while imposing their theocratic vision, positioning themselves as the ultimate protectors of Shiasm and—ambitiously—the rightful leaders of the entire Muslim world. Public bluster is one thing; making such delusions a core governing principle is another.

Shortly after the revolution, Iran plunged into an eight-year war with Iraq (1980–1988), costing perhaps a million lives with little territorial or strategic gain. One ironic outcome: Iran shed its role as a Western-aligned pawn under the Shah, while Iraq briefly became one. Meanwhile, Iran shifted to asymmetric warfare, building proxy networks in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere. It funneled billions to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, stirring anti-Israel sentiment among non-Sunni populations to expand influence.

From a geopolitical standpoint, proxy meddling makes sense only if it yields tangible benefits—much like Western interventions often protect economic interests. But what has Iran realistically gained from endless anti-Israel rhetoric and support for militias? Slogans about “wiping Israel off the map” have produced little beyond reciprocal threats and sermons. Yet Tehran has persisted, seemingly convinced that such hostility would elevate it as the preeminent Islamic power and leader of the ummah.

This ambition to dominate the Islamic world by variety of Islamic zealots dates back centuries and has rarely succeeded. For Iran, it has backfired spectacularly, leading not to regional hegemony but to isolation, sanctions, and now direct military pressure. Decades of 'investment' evaporated in last three years since Hamas is decimated (along with 50,000 Palestinians!), Hizbollah already in ashes, Syria and Lebanon quickly overthrowing the Assads. The so called geo-strategy now in complete ruins. 

Iranian army has done a great job in countering initial US-Israeli onslaught by effectively closing the gulf passage. Iran, and we should tip our hat at their brilliant strategy, made this war everyone's business - anyone who uses petrol or LPG gas, is now 'at war' here. How long before US and Israel claim 'victory' and back down? A week more? Two weeks? 

The real tragedy falls on Iran’s common people, who endure economic hardship, repression, and the costs of perpetual conflict. Paradoxically, ongoing tensions often strengthen the regime’s grip: external threats justify internal crackdowns, rally nationalist support, and sustain the narrative of resistance against “arrogant powers.” The mullahs themselves live in luxury, insulated from the suffering they inflict.

The Epstein's Galaxy Of Filth!

Imagine this: Nobel laureates, presidents, billionaires, Harvard presidents, and royals all lining up to befriend a man already convicted as a sex offender. They partied on his island, flew on his plane, took his money, called him “Uncle Jeffrey.”

What the hell were they thinking?

The latest Epstein file dumps—millions of pages released in early 2026—lay it bare. And the only thing clearer than the depravity is the elite impunity staring back at us. This saga redefines exasperation.

We’re the ordinary people: non-billionaires, non-millionaires, barely graduated, no Nobels, no crowns, no black books. We no longer know what to feel. A galaxy of the ultra-wealthy, brilliant minds, and tycoons orbited a convicted pedophile. Money? Most had mountains of it. Did even the geniuses need his cash? Perhaps. But didn’t their rare intelligence equip them to spot the monster?

The Clinton Piece Fits Too Perfectly
Even without documents, common sense screamed Bill Clinton belonged in Epstein’s world—like two Lego bricks snapping together. The ties ran deeper. Clinton’s Global Initiative got nearly $1 million from Epstein for the launch of the initiative. Per Ghislaine Maxwell, she played critical role in setting up the foundation. To 'go above and beyond' it seems she even had an affair with Doug Band - top aide of Bill Clinton. Epstein even visited the White House multiple times. Clinton-era networks flowed into Obama’s administration; leftovers lingered in Democratic Party circles. Take Kathryn Ruemmler: Obama’s White House Counsel, later Goldman Sachs’ top lawyer. She stayed close to Epstein after his 2008 conviction, offering pro-bono advice on his sexual-assault charges. Emails show her thanking “Uncle Jeffrey” for luxury gifts—Hermès bags, spa days, flowers.

(Quick aside: Is “Uncle” the new Gen-Z code for “Daddy”? Maybe we should ask Kethryn about legality of these terms!)

The Banks That Still Cash the Checks
JP Morgan allegedly polished Epstein’s image and possibly laundered funds—yet consequences remain light (settlements in 2023, other scrutiny ongoing). Goldman Sachs—famous for blurring public-private lines—backed Ruemmler until the pressure became a “distraction.” They preferred keeping someone who aided a convicted pedophile over finding a replacement. Now, JP Morgan’s revenue nears $280 billion; Goldman’s at $58 billion. They don’t care about public scorn. Money flowed before, during, and after conviction—and still flows long after Epstein’s death. Clinton? Untouchable. Accused of worse, elected president, weathered every storm. This is a teacup tempest for him—his duck’s-back skin has seen it all.

Academia’s Shameful Blind Spot
Some patterns make grim sense: Clinton’s womanizing history, banks’ ethical sleaze (Goldman’s 2008 crisis role). But Larry Summers? Towering economist, ex-Treasury Secretary, ex-Harvard president—what did he need from Epstein that his brilliance couldn’t supply? (How great was Larry summers? - at the age of 28 he became the youngest tenured professor in Harvard's history.) Yet he courted favor eagerly, fawning over him in the photo below. . Noam Chomsky—fierce power critic, one of the sharpest minds alive—sought Epstein’s help for a “purely technical” estate arrangement for his late wife. Really? No one in MIT’s circle, Harvard’s backyard, or New York’s intellectuals sufficed? Of course, Summer and Chomsky are in an august company when it comes to snuggling with Epstein. There are  mathematicians, linguists, physicists, geneticists—stayed close post-2008. They all pleaded remorse when confronted with initial list of documents. But as more deluge followed, it was clear that these people knowingly continued their close contact with Epstein. What could be their defense for this laps in judgement? “Nerds miss social cues” (dubious). Or “science needs funding—we overlooked the rest” (worse). Funding scarcity is eternal; it never justified giggling with a predator. For the love of god, please don’t drag science into your moral excuses. In Epstein they saw money, fame and contacts. They saw their vanity and ego getting massaged - literally and figuratively. None of them cared for morality and ethics. They probably never thought they will be held accoutable. Why would they?

The Hidden Elite Economy
Lust for attractive—and underage—women was one draw (unless you’re Prince Andrew, where lust seems the whole story). The rest? They are masters of a shadow economy where only uber-elites are the members and the favors is the table setters and women are merely a currency. None of these powerfuls ever imagined leaks. If billions and titles don't buy discernment, what does?If everyone’s naked in the pool, shame dissolves.

But the rest of us aren’t in that pool. What Do We Learn? Painfully Little. None of these A-'listers' will face real punishment. Their PR machines will spin like a washing machine, delivering either faded narrative or cleaner images. Forget about punishments, their lifestyles won’t see a dent worth a cent. They’ll reconvene at Davos, Clinton initiatives, the next elite forum—trading more power and wealth.

The convicted, the accused, the complicit will continue to be the most powerful people on earth, wielding outsized control over our lives. The file releases were like opening of a wormhole, allowing us us a rare, unfiltered glimpse into elite worlds' debauchery and ethical decay. Once every page is out, we’ll know even more—but knowing changes almost nothing on its own.

They keep ruling.

We keep watching, exasperated and angry.

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.